Kerala High Court
C.M. Sajeevan vs Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub ... on 8 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 12585 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:66385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12585 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 C.M. SAJEEVAN,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. T.P. RAMAN, 'PRANAVAM', CHAMPAD, PATHIRIYAD
P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670741
2 C.M. SATHEESAN,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. T.P. RAMAN, 'SIKHA', CHAMPAD, PATHIRIYAD P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670741
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.M.PAREETH
SHRI.NAJEEB P.S
SHRI.NAJAH EBRAHIM V.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR,
THALASSERY,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY 17, PALLISSERY, THALASSERY, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670101
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
(UNDER KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET
LAND ACT), VENGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS
CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT VENGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VENGAD
P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670612
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN,VENGAD, P.O., PATHIRIYAD, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670741
WP(C) NO. 12585 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:66385
4 SECRETARY,
VENGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VENGAD P.O., KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670612
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 12585 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:66385
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 08th day of September, 2025
The first petitioner is the owner in possession of 14
cents of land comprised in Re-Survey No.10/1A2 and the
second petitioner is the owner in possession of 52 cents of
land comprised in Re-Survey No.10/1A4 both in Paduvilayi
Village, Kannur District, covered under Ext.P1 settlement
deed. The respondents have erroneously classified the
properties 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 properties
from the data bank, the petitioners had submitted Exts.P3
and P5 applications, respectively before the authorised
officer in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However,
by Ext.P6 common order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected Exts.P3 and P5 applications alongwith
2025:KER:66385
other applications of the other land owners 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
petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' principal contention is that
the applied properties are not a cultivable paddy field but
is a converted plot. Nonetheless, the properties have been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the
Form 5 applications, the authorised officer has rejected
the same without proper consideration or application of
mind.
2025:KER:66385
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.P6 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 properties
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
2025:KER:66385
nature and character of the land as on the relevant date.
There is also no finding whether the exclusion of the
properties 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 applications as per the procedure
prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P6 order is quashed so far as it relates to the
petitioners' Exts.P3 and P5 applications.
(ii) The authorised officer is directed to reconsider
Exts.P3 and P5 applications, in accordance with the
law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the
properties or calling for the satellite pictures as
2025:KER:66385
provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of
the petitioners.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the
applications 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 applications shall be 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
NAB
2025:KER:66385
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12585/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
\
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
NO. 1874/1990 DATED 06-10-1990 OF
ANJARAKKANDY SUB REGISTRY EXECUTED BY
THEIR FATHER IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE LANDS
HELD BY THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH OTHER
PIECES OF LAND
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION
OF THE DATA BANK DATED 01-12-2010 OF PADDY
LANDS AND WET LANDS OF VENGAD GRAMA
PANCHAYATH
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
23-03-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST
PETITIONER IN FORM 5 BEFORE THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 30-
07-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER
BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
23-03-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND
PETITIONER IN FORM 5 BEFORE THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
RDOTLY/647/2021-K DATED 21-03-2022 ISSUED
BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
SECOND RESPONDENT COMMITTEE DATED 14-12-
2021 ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 14-03-2024
FROM THE THIRD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND IN RESPECT OF THE
FIRST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P9 A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND IN RESPECT OF THE
SECOND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
RDOTLY/2134/2022-K1 K. DIS DATED03-09-2022
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND IN RESPECT
OF THE FIRST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P11(a) A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND IN RESPECT
OF THE FIRST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P11(b) A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND IN RESPECT
OF THE FIRST PETITIONER
