Kerala High Court
Vinod Kumar P.R vs The State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:68280
WP(C) NO. 24679 OF 2025
1
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. 24679 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
VINOD KUMAR P.R
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, R/O POKKAROTT VADAKKETHIL,
KARAKKADU P.O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689504
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.ADITHYAN
SMT.EMIL GIJU
SMT.REMIN THOMAS
SMT.JISLIYA K. JOSHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA KOZHENCHERY
ROAD - SH 10, CHENGANNUR, PIN - 689121
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MULAKUZHA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689504
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, MULAKUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN
- 689504
2025:KER:68280
WP(C) NO. 24679 OF 2025
2
5 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 690033
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
SC- 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:
2025:KER:68280
WP(C) NO. 24679 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
29.84 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.259/3 in
Mulakkuzha Village, Chengannur Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 land tax receipt. Out of the above extent of
land, 3.65 Ares of land has been erroneously classified
as 'paddy 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 a From 5 application under Rule 4(4d) of the
Rules. However, by Ext.P2 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. Consequently, the petitioner submitted
Ext.P3 application, requesting the authorised officer to
2025:KER:68280
WP(C) NO. 24679 OF 2025
reconsider the application. But, by Ext.P4 order, the
authorised officer has rejected Ext.P3 application on
the ground that there is no provision to review his own
order. Exts.P2 and P4 orders are illegal and arbitrary
and are 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
2025:KER:68280
WP(C) NO. 24679 OF 2025
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.
5. A reading of Ext.P2 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, who in turn has relied on the observations made
by 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
2025:KER:68280
WP(C) NO. 24679 OF 2025
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 petition in the following manner:
(i) Exts.P2 and P4 orders are 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
2025:KER:68280
WP(C) NO. 24679 OF 2025
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
rmm/15/9/2025
2025:KER:68280
WP(C) NO. 24679 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24679/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 17.09.2021 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
IS MARKED AS EXHIBIT P1.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED
27.04.2025, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT,
IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS
EXHIBIT P2.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
17.05.25 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND IS
MARKED AS EXHIBIT P3.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF REJECTION ORDER DATED
20.05.2025 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
MARKED AS EXHIBIT P4.
