Kerala High Court
Saji Madhavan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 10 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:75415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 18TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 15327 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SAJI MADHAVAN,
AGED 50 YEARS
C/O DEEPA RAJ, SREEMADHAVAM, MEENA NAGAR ,
KALMANDAPAM , PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 DEEPA RAJ,
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O SAJI MADHAVAN , MEENA NAGAR KALMANDAPAM,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SMT.ANJANA KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE RDO, PARAKKUNNAM,
VYDYUTH NAGAR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KODUMBU (PO),
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KODUMBU VILLAGE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007
WP(C) NO. 15327 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:75415
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 15327 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:75415
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession
of 4.13 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 511/5
in Kodumbu Village, Palakkad Taluk, covered under
Ext. P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted
plot and 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 an application in Form 5
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected
the application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery,
as specifically mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
2025:KER:75415
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 legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioners is that
the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including 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
2025:KER:75415
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the competent
authority 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 merits
exclusion from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P3 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 directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer, who in turn relied on the report of
the Local Level Monitoring Committee ('LLMC'), that the
impugned order has been passed. The authorised officer
has not rendered 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
2025:KER:75415
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 aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P3 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 application in accordance with
law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call
for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules, at the cost of the petitioners.
2025:KER:75415
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 personally inspect the
property, the application shall be considered and
disposed of within two months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/10.10.25
2025:KER:75415
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15327/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX DATED 29-07-
2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICER,
KODUMBU DATED 30-07-2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 5664/2023 DATED
17-07-2023 BY 1ST RESPONDENT
