Kerala High Court
Sumesh Narayanan Nair vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:74201
WP(C) NO. 25849 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25849 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 SUMESH NARAYANAN NAIR
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT VAISAKH, CC
29/1103/A, JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682019
2 BHAGYALAKSHMI
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT VAISAKH, CC
29/1103/A, JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKUALM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682019
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.N.HARIDAS
SHRI.SAIFUDEEN T.S
SMT.B.SHAMEERA
SMT.NIMISHAMOL SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
FORT KOCHI, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR,
KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R.)
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, MINI CIVIL STATION, MAIN ROAD,
2025:KER:74201
WP(C) NO. 25849 OF 2025
2
THRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682301
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, MINI CIVIL STATION, MAIN ROAD,
THRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682301
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
NADAMA VILLAGE OFFICE, VAIKOM ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682301
SR.GP. SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74201
WP(C) NO. 25849 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession
of 7.28 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 29 in
Block No.70 of Nadama Village, Kanayannur Taluk,
covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The property is a
converted land and is unsuitable for paddy cultivation.
Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously
classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it in
the data bank maintained under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008,
and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules', for
brevity). To exclude the property from the data bank,
the petitioners had submitted Ext.P3 application in
Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by
Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer has summarily
rejected the application without either conducting a
personal inspection of the land or calling for the
2025:KER:74201
WP(C) NO. 25849 OF 2025
satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any
independent finding regarding the nature and character
of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008 - the date the Act
came into force. The impugned order, therefore, is
arbitrary and unsustainable in law and liable to be
quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' principal contention is that the
applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the
Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected
the same without proper consideration or application of
mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court - including the decisions in Muraleedharan
Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
2025:KER:74201
WP(C) NO. 25849 OF 2025
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad
[2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue
Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT
433] - that the authorised officer is obliged to assess the
nature, lie and character of the land and its suitability for
paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the
decisive criteria to determine whether the property is to
be excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P4 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory
requirements. There is no indication in the order that the
authorised officer has personally inspected the property
or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under
Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has
merely acted upon the report of the Agricultural Officer,
who in turn has relied on the recommendation of hte
Local Level Monitoring Committee. The authorised
officer has not rendered any independent finding
regarding the nature and character of the land as on the
2025:KER:74201
WP(C) NO. 25849 OF 2025
relevant date. There is also no finding whether the
exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the
surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above findings, I
hold that the impugned order was passed in
contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid
down by this Court. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated
due to errors of law and non-application of mind, and is
liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised officer
is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5 application as
per the procedure prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 application, in accordance with
the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the
property or calling for the satellite pictures as provided
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the
petitioner.
2025:KER:74201
WP(C) NO. 25849 OF 2025
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the application
shall be disposed of within three months from the date of
receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the
authorised officer opts to inspect the property personally,
the application shall be disposed of within two months
from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by
the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/8/10/2025
2025:KER:74201
WP(C) NO. 25849 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25849/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICE, NADAMA VILLAGE, FOR
LAND COMPRISED IN SY. NO. 29 IN BLOCK
NO.070 DATED 11.11.2024 TO THE
PETITIONERS
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATA BANK PUBLISHED DATED NIL
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2022
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE EXT
P3 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS DATED 01.06.2023
