Kerala High Court
Leena Saji vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub ... on 11 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 27216 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:67397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27216 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
LEENA SAJI ,
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O SAJI PAUL KALAPPILLIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682314
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.SOYUZ
SRI.E.V.BABYCHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR,
RDO OFFICE, FORT KOCHI ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R),
ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, MULANTHURUTHY / CONVENOR LLMC
MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH., MULANTHURUTHY P.O
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682314
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ,
MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE MULANTHURUTHY P.O, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682314
5 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
(KSREC) C BLOCK , VIKAS BHAVAN , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
WP(C) NO. 27216 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:67397
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.DEEPA V., SC-SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 27216 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:67397
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 27216 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 14.57 Ares
of land comprised in Re-Survey No.9/2 in Block No.23 in
Mulanthuruthy Village, Kanayannur Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 land tax receipt. Even though the petitioner's property
is a converted land, the respondents have erroneously
classified the same as paddy land and included it in Ext.P2
notified 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 Form 5 application under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. By
Ext.P6 judgment, this Court had directed the authorised
officer to consider Ext.P3 application expeditiously.
Notwithstanding the directions in Ext.P6 judgment, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the application
without either conducting a personal inspection of the
WP(C) NO. 27216 OF 2024
2025:KER:67397
property or calling for the satellite pictures as mandated
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, Ext.P7 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. In the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent, it is,
inter-alia, contended that the Agricultural Officer has
reported that the applied property was not converted before
2008 and is lying as paddy land/wetland, and has
recommended to retain the property in the data bank. There is
a pond in the middle of the applied property. The petitioner's
Form 5 application was rejected not only on the basis of the
presence of the pond, but also in view of the paddy land
characteristics. There is no illegality in Ext.P7 order. Hence,
the writ petition may be dismissed.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the
decision of this Court in Ajikumar K.V. vs. Vinod Kumar and
WP(C) NO. 27216 OF 2024
2025:KER:67397
Others (2016 (1) KHC 477) to fortify his contention that the
mere presence of a pond in a property will not make the
property a paddy land or wetland.
5. The petitioner's principal contention is that the applied
property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a converted plot.
Nonetheless, the respondents have erroneously included the
property in the data bank. Despite filing the Form 5
application, the authorised officer has rejected the same
without rendering any independent finding.
6. 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.
7. A reading of Ext.P7 order reveals that the authorised
WP(C) NO. 27216 OF 2024
2025:KER:67397
officer has not directly inspected the property or called for
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.
8. In light of the above findings, I hold that Ext.P7 order
has been passed in contravention of the statutory mandate and
the law laid down by this Court.
9. By order dated 07.04.2025, this Court had directed the
5th respondent to submit the satellite pictures within one
month from the date of receipt of an application from the
petitioner. It is reported that the satellite pictures have been
received.
10. On an overall consideration of the facts and materials
on record, especially the fact that the authorised officer has
not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature
and character of the land and has not personally inspected the
WP(C) NO. 27216 OF 2024
2025:KER:67397
property or referred to satellite pictures, I am satisfied that
Ext.P7 order is liable to be quashed.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P7 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Ext.P3 Form 5 application, in accordance
with the law, by either conducting a personal
inspection of the property or referring to the satellite
pictures that has been submitted by the 5th respondent.
(iii) The above exercise shall be completed within 60 days
from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/11.09.25
WP(C) NO. 27216 OF 2024
2025:KER:67397
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27216/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
31.05.2021
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NOTIFIED DATA BANK OF MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA
PANCHAYATH DATED 03.03.2021
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.5
DATED 30.09.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 6
DATED 01.11.2021 ALONG WITH COPY OF CHALAN
AND SKETCH
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. 16043 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.2021
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT W.PC NO. 12192 OF
2022 AND AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 05.04.2022
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2023 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. REV-
P1/149/2023 - REV DATED 25.03.2024
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
01.06.2023
