Kerala High Court
Leela A.C vs Revenue Divisional Officer (Sub ... on 16 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 13322 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:68797
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 25TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13322 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
LEELA A.C.,
AGED 85 YEARS
W/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, AVIKKARA ROAD, CHOMBALA P.O.,
VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673308
BY ADVS.
SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
SHRI.ARUNKUMAR P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SUB COLLECTOR),
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THALASERY THALUK, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670001
2 VILLAGE OFFICER,
THIRUVANGADU VILLAGE OFFICE, THALASERY THALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670103
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, THALASSERY, THALASERY THALUK, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670104
GP.SMT.DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 13322 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:68797
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 13322 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 9
Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.46/102 of
Thiruvangadu Village, Thalassery Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land
and is 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.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
WP(C) NO. 13322 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:68797
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 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
WP(C) NO. 13322 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:68797
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.
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. In fact, the Agricultural Officer has
recommended the property to be excluded from the data
bank. Notwithstanding the said recommendation the
authorised officer has rejected the application 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
WP(C) NO. 13322 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:68797
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) Ext.P6 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Ext.P4 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
WP(C) NO. 13322 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:68797
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
SCB.16.09.25.
WP(C) NO. 13322 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:68797
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13322/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT
DATED 19.05.2023.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 31.05.2023.
Exhibit P3 THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY DATED NIL.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 31.05.2023.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 20.06.2023.
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2023.
Petition PETITION FOR EARLY POSTING
