Kerala High Court
Sujatha Mary Thomas vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:74310
WP(C) NO. 29590 OF 2024
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. 29590 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
SUJATHA MARY THOMAS,
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O GEORGE, KALAMANNIL (H)11/281 -(1) CRASH ROAD
VAZHAKKALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021
BY ADV SMT.M.S.SHAMLA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682001
2 VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE CHERANALLORE ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682027
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURE OFFICE CHERANALLORE ERNAKULAM-682027
SMT.JESSY S.SALIM, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74310
WP(C) NO. 29590 OF 2024
2
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 29590 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10.47
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.282/3-6 in
Cheranelloor Village in Kanayannur Taluk, covered under
Ext.P2 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 petitioner had submitted Ext.P4
application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P7 order, the authorised officer has
2025:KER:74310
WP(C) NO. 29590 OF 2024
summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling
for the 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 petitioner's 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
2025:KER:74310
WP(C) NO. 29590 OF 2024
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], 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.P7 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
2025:KER:74310
WP(C) NO. 29590 OF 2024
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 without rendering any independent finding
regarding the nature and character of the land as on the
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
2025:KER:74310
WP(C) NO. 29590 OF 2024
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P7 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form 5, 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.
(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
dkr
2025:KER:74310
WP(C) NO. 29590 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29590/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3377/1983
DATED 16.09.1983 OF ERNAKULAM SRO
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE
YEAR 2022-2023 DATED 17/06/2022 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOR OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA
BANK ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 BEARING
NO21/2023/945687 DATED 04/12/2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HONORABLE COURT IN WPC NO.2943 OF 2023
DATED 24/12/2023
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN
C.C.NO.1619/2024 DATED 12/08/2024 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED
BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEARING FILE
NO.19/2024 DATED 20/07/2024
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO.23609/2023 DATED 11/10/2023 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT
