Kerala High Court
Sameer A vs Revenue Divisional Officer Palakkad on 9 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 26995 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:74724
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 17TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26995 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SAMEER A
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O ABDUL ASEES, PERUMCHIRA, POTHAMPADAM,
MUTHALAMADA P O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678507
BY ADV SMT.M.P.SUNITHA BEEGUM
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678001
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ELAVANCHERRY VILLAGE OFFICE, ELAVANCHERRY PO,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678508
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
3.ELAVANCHERRY KRISHI BHAVAN, ELAVANCHERRY P O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678508
4 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN P O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695033
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
SRI.VISHNU S CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 26995 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:74724
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 09th day of October, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.2
Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.877/5-2 and
877/7-2 in Block No.7 in Elavancherry Village, Chittur
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 petitioner 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
2025:KER:74724
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 Sesnior 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 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
2025:KER:74724
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
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
2025:KER:74724
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 1st 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.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the
application shall be disposed of within three months
2025:KER:74724
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
NAB
2025:KER:74724
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26995/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT
BEARING NO. KL09020604997/2024 DATED
23/08/2024 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
BEARING NO. 91525906 DATED 16/02/2025
ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5
BEARING NUMBER 1/2022/1378583 DATED
09/12/2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER WITH
FILE NO. 725/2025 DATED 07/06/2025 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
