Kerala High Court
Rajesh M.S vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 11 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 2492 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:67630
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. 2492 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
RAJESH M.S,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. LATE SANKARAN ILAYATH,SREE GOKULAM, LBS ROAD,
EDAPPALLY P.O, EDAPPALLY, PIN - 682024
BY ADV SMT.C.K.SHERIN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R.),
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KOCHI CORPORATION, KRISHI BHAVAN, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682019
4 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
(KSREC), VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, 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. 2492 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:67630
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 2492 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 7.73 Ares
of land comprised in Re-Survey No.19 in Edappally North
Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam covered under Ext.P1
land tax receipt. The property is a converted land and
unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the
respondents have erroneously classified the property as
'converted land' and included 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.P4 application in Form 5, under
Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P6 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the application
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
WP(C) NO. 2492 OF 2025
2025:KER:67630
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 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 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
WP(C) NO. 2492 OF 2025
2025:KER:67630
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 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 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
WP(C) NO. 2492 OF 2025
2025:KER:67630
petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P6 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd 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 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 one month 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
rkc/11.09.25
WP(C) NO. 2492 OF 2025
2025:KER:67630
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2492/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
29.05.2024 FOR THE PERIOD 2024-2025 ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICE; EDAPPALLY NORTH
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA
BANK ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, EDAPPALLY
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE
OF THE PROPERTY
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 5
DATED 09.08.2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2024 IN
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
BEARING NO. 4284/24 DATED 16.12.2024
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER DATED 13.08.2024
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT DATED
10.03.2025 ISSUED FROM AMRUTHA HOSPITAL
ERNAKULAM ALONG WITH THE SCANNING REPORT IS
