Kerala High Court
Jyolsna.T.K, D/O.Damodharan vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 15 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 27485 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:68225
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. 27485 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JYOLSNA.T.K, D/O.DAMODHARAN,
AGED 47 YEARS
REENALAYAM, KALLYASSERI SOUTH, P.O. ANCHAMPEEDIKA,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670331
BY ADVS. SHRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
SHRI.NIDHEESH T.P
SHRI.MIDHUN SUDARSANAN P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670141
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670001
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
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. 27485 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:68225
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10 cents
of land comprised in Re-Survey No.70/1 in Payyannur
Village, Kannur District, covered under Ext.P2 land tax
receipt. The petitioner's property is a converted land. The
petitioner has constructed a building in the said property as
discernible from Ext.P3 building tax receipt. When the
petitioner proposed to reconstruct the existing building, he
was informed that the respondents have erroneously
classified the property 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, the authorised officer has summarily rejected
the said application by Ext.P7 order. Assailing Ext.P7 order,
the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the 2nd
2025:KER:68225
respondent. By Ext.P10 direction, the 2nd respondent
directed the 1st respondent/authorised officer to reconsider
the Form 5 application after calling for a report from the
Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre
(KSREC). Notwithstanding the said direction, the
authorised officer has not reconsidered the Form 5
application. The inaction on the part of the authorised
officer is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, Ext.P7 order may
be quashed and the 1st respondent be directed to
reconsider the matter afresh.
2. In the statement filed by the 1st respondent,
it is, inter alia, contended that, in the site inspection that
was conducted by the Agricultural Officer with the Local
Level Monitoring Committee, it was found that the
petitioner's property is wet in nature and is not to be
excluded from the data bank. It is based on the said report
that the authorised officer decided that the property is to
be retained in the data bank. Subsequently, the petitioner
submitted a representation before the 2nd respondent
2025:KER:68225
alleging that Ext.P7 order is not fair and is liable to be set
aside. Even though the 2nd respondent has no appellate
powers under the Act, he directed the 1 st respondent to
examine the matter in light of the KSREC report and take a
suitable decision in the matter. Consequently, the 1 st
respondent has directly inspected the property and
evaluated the KSREC report, and found out the land is
suitable for paddy cultivation. Therefore, there is no
necessity to reconsider the matter afresh. As the Deputy
Collector (DM), Kannur is currently the jurisdictional
officer having statutory powers to oversee the matter, the
1st respondent has addressed him to take necessary action
in the matter on humanitarian concern. Hence, the writ
petition may be dismissed.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's principal contention is that
the property is a pucca dry land and is not suitable for
paddy cultivation. It is without considering any of these
2025:KER:68225
aspects that the 1st respondent passed Ext.P7 order.
Subsequently, in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the 2nd
respondent directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the
matter. However, the same has not been done till date.
5. The learned Government Pleader submits
that, it is only because the 2nd respondent has no
jurisdiction in the matter that the 1st respondent has not
reconsidered the matter. Therefore, there is no necessity
to quash Ext.P7 order.
6. On a consideration of facts and the materials
on record, particularly the directions issued by the 2 nd
respondent in Ext.P10, which has attained finality, and that
the 2nd respondent is the appellate authority of the
authorised officer under the Act, and further that the 1 st
respondent has now forwarded the Form 5 application to
the current authorised officer, namely, the Deputy Collector
(DM), Kannur, who is yet to take a decision in the matter, I
am of the definite view that the current authorised officer is
to be directed to reconsider the matter.
2025:KER:68225
7. Moreover, a reading of Ext.P7 order reveals
that the 1st respondent has not directly inspected the
property or referred to the satellite pictures at the time of
taking a decision in Ext.P7 order. He has also not rendered
any independent finding regarding the nature and
character of the land as on the relevant date and also
whether the exclusion of the property from the data bank
would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.
8. In light of the above findings, I hold that the
impugned Ext.P7 order is liable to be quashed and the
authorised officer is to be directed to reconsider the
matter.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the following
manner:
(i) Ext.P7 order is quashed.
(ii) The authorised officer is directed to reconsider
the petitioner's Form 5 application, in accordance with
the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of
the property or referring to the KSREC report as
2025:KER:68225
referred to in the statement filed by the 1 st respondent.
The above exercise shall be carried out within three
months from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:68225
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27485/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COOT OF THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER WITH NO.3165/2011 OF SRO,
PAYYANNUR DATED 1.8.2011
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
FROM THE PAYYANNUR VILLAGE OFFICE IN FAVOUR
OF THE PETITIONER 18.4.2024
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED FROM THE PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21.5.2024
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER AS PER RIGHT TO INFORMATIOKN
ACT BEFORE THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER,
PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY DATED 23.5.2024
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER ISSUED BY THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, PAYYANNUR
MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONER DATED
24.5.2024
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER ISSUED BY THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, PAYYANNUR
MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONER DATED
30.5.2024
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 DATED 1.6.2022
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED
30.6.2022
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR IN THE APPEAL, THE
PETITIONER OBTAINED AS PER RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT DATED NIL
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1
DATED 1.8.2022
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGIRCUTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, PAYYANNUR DATED
14.8.2022
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1
DATED 25.1.2024
EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE APPLICANT'S HOUSE AND
PROPERTY
