Kerala High Court
Biju M.K vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:75335
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. 20077 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BIJU M.K
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O DEVAKI K, KARTHIKA, KUTTIKKADU,
P O KADAKKAL , KOLLAM KERALA MANAGING DIRECTOR KARTHIKA
CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS PVI LTD, PIN - 691536
BY ADVS.
SHRI.AMRITH M.J.
SHRI.AKHIL SURESH
SMT.KALLIYANI KRISHNA B.
SMT.ISABELL MANOJ
SHRI.RAHUL T.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695304
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AND AGRICULTURAL OFFICER.
PULIMATHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695612
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PULIMATHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695612
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. 20077 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:75335
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner Company is the owner in
possession of 36.10 Ares of land comprised in Re-
Survey Nos. 400/1, 400/17, 400/2, 400/3, 400/3-1,
400/9 and 400/9-1 in Block No. 35 in Pulimathu Village,
Chirayinkeezhu Taluk covered under Ext. P6 land tax
receipt. The property is a converted plot and
unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the
respondents have erroneously classified the property
as 'wetland' 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.P10 application in Form 5 under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P11 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without conducting a personal inspection
2025:KER:75335
of the land. Even though the Agricultural Officer had
called for report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing
and Environment Centre ('KSREC report,' for short),
the same was not considerd. 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
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner 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.
2025:KER:75335
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 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.P11 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, that the impugned order has been
passed. Actually, the Agricultural Officer had called for
Ext. P12 KSREC report, but the authorised officer has
2025:KER:75335
not considered the same.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 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.P11 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P10 application, in accordance
2025:KER:75335
with law, by either conducting a personal inspection of
the property or by referring to Ext. P12 KSREC report.
iii. The above exercise shall be carried out within
three months from the date of production of a copy of the
judgment.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/10.10.25
2025:KER:75335
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20077/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 732/2014 OF
KILIMANOOR SRO
Exhibit P2 A TINE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 757/2014 OF
KILIMANOOR SRO
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 508/2016 OF
KILIMANOOR SRO
Exhibit P4 A TINE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1279/1/2022
OF KILIMANOOR SRO
Exhibit P5 A TINE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO. 80967803 DATED 10.102023
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX
RECEIPT NO. KL01022303354/2025 DATED
26.04.2025 REGARDING THE SUBJECT
PROPERTIES
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ALONG
WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 09.112023
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RDO,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU DATED 26.03.2025
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT NO. A-
172/2015/KSREC/003912/24 DATED 04.04.2024
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION AND
VERIFICATION REPORT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 29.02.2016
