Kerala High Court
Martin Johny vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 15 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:68301
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. 21934 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MARTIN JOHNY
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O JOHNY, EDACKATTUKUDY, RAMALLOOR,
KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
BY ADVS.
SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
SMT.NEENA ELISABATH ANTONY
SMT.ANN SILLA PRASAD
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA, RDO OFFICE,
MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686691
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS CONVENOR, THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN
- 686691
4 THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V.,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
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. 21934 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:68301
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 19.83
Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 992/3-2 in
Kothamangalam Village, Kothamangalam Taluk, covered
under Ext. P1 land tax receipt. The property is a
converted plot and unsuitable for paddy cultivation.
Nevertheless, 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 Ext. P2 application in Form 5 under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the application
without either conducting a personal inspection of the
land or relying on satellite imagery, as specifically
mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore,
2025:KER:68301
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 legally
unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that
the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including 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
2025:KER:68301
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the competent
authority 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 merits
exclusion from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P3 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 directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer, that the impugned order has been
passed. 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
2025:KER:68301
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 aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P3 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext. P2 application in accordance with law.
The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal
inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the
satellite pictures, in accordance with 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
2025:KER:68301
receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the
authorised officer opts to personally inspect the
property, the application shall be considered and
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
mtk/15.09.25
2025:KER:68301
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21934/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
28/10/2024 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE,
KOTHAMANGALAM
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.5 APPLICATION
DATED 28/11/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/11/2024
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
