Kerala High Court
Babu Lonachan Alappatt vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 15 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 21644 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:68228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 24TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21644 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BABU LONACHAN ALAPPATT,
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O LATE LONACHAN, ALAPPATT HOUSE, KATTOOR P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-, PIN - 680702
BY ADVS. SMT.RENI JAMES
SMT.C.R.REKHA
SMT.T.A.MARY RINJU
SHRI.MICHAEL.M.WILSON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR,
CIVIL STATION RD, IRINJALAKUDA-, PIN - 680125
2 THE TAHSILDAR
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, CHEMMANDA RD,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-, PIN - 680125
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KATTOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, KATTOOR, PIN - 680702
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KATTOOR KRISHI BHAVAN KATTOOR, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680702
BY SMT.DEEPA V, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21644 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:68228
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 1
hectare and 39.60 Ares of land comprised in Survey
Nos.403/4-22, 494/1-35, 727/4, 727/5 and 433/1-4 in
Kattoor Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, covered under
Ext.P2 land tax receipt. The respondents have erroneously
classified the land in Survey No.433/1-4 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 petitioner
had submitted a Form 5 application, under Rule 4(4d) of
the Rules. However, by Ext.P4 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 independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the land as it
2025:KER:68228
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 1st respondent,
it is contended that the Agricultural Officer has reported
that the Local Level Monitoring Committee had inspected
the property and found it to be water-logged. The
petitioner himself has stated that the property is regularly
flooded and salt water enters the property during high
tides. Based on the above, the Agricultural Officer has
recommended the property to be retained as
'Thaneerthadam' in the data bank. A report from the
Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre
(KSREC) is required to decide the matter. However, the
4th respondent has not directed the 1 st respondent to obtain
the KSREC report. It is in the above circumstances, that
the Form 5 application was rejected.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2025:KER:68228
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. A reading of Ext.P4 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory
2025:KER:68228
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,
who in turn has relied on the recommendation of the Local
Level Monitoring Committee. 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.
2025:KER:68228
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st 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
two months 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
NAB
2025:KER:68228
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21644/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DATED 10.03.1992
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATE
24.04.2024
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT NO. 5549/2024 DATED 10.10.2024
