Kerala High Court
Annamma @ Chinnamma vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 16 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:68737
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. 21864 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 ANNAMMA @ CHINNAMMA
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O. JOHNY, VADAKETHADATHIL HOUSE
KOODATHAI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673573
2 SARAMMA
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O. MATHAI, KULATHINGAL HOUSE
KOODATHAI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673573
3 SHOSHAMMA
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O. PAULOSE, MANAKKALKAROTTU
KOODATHAI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673573
4 MARKOSE
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. PUNNOOSE, PUNNAKKAL CHAMORA,
KOODATHAI BAZAR, KOODATHAI,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673573
BY ADV SHRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL
STATION, JUMA MASJID, ERANHIPPALAM
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
WP(C) NO.21864 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:68737
2 THE TAHSILDAR
OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE TALUK,
CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, OMASSERY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673582
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER KOODATHAI,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673573
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- 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.21864 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:68737
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession
of 12 Ares and 14.8 sq. meters of land comprised in
Survey No. 2/13 in Koodathai Village, Thamarassery
Taluk, covered under Ext. P3 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 petitioners predecessor in interest had
submitted Ext.P5 application in Form 5 under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P8 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
2025:KER:68737
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery,
as specifically 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. Aggrieved by Ext. P8 order, the petitioners
had preferred Ext. P9 appeal before the fifth
respondent. But, by Ext. P11 order, Ext. P9 appeal was
rejected on the ground that there is no provision in the
Act to file an appeal against Ext. P8 order. Exts. P8 and
P11 are arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioners 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
2025:KER:68737
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
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.P8 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
2025:KER:68737
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the
Village 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
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:
2025:KER:68737
i. Exts.P8 and P11 orders are quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P5 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 petitioners.
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 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 petitioners.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/16.09.2025
2025:KER:68737
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21864/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF MARIYAMMA
PUNNOOSE HAVING DOCUMENT NO. 3767/94 OF SRO,
KODUVALLY DATED 15-10-1994
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DEED NO. 92/3/14
DATED 20-10-2014 OF SRO, KODENCHERRY
EXECUTED BY MARIYAMMA PUNNOOSE
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT OF THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE YEAR 2004-2005 DATED 09-
01-2025 OF KOODATHAI VILLAGE OFFICE
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF
MARIYAMMA PUNNOOSE DATED 08-10-2023
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY MARIYAMMA PUNNOOSE BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04-11-2023
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY TAKEN IN THE YEAR 2000
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
LAND IDENTIFICATION DETAILS OF KOODATHAI
VILLAGE PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER'S
PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 27-01-2025 ON THE FORM 5
APPLICATION
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED
25-02-2025 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH
RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DATED 21-02-2025
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16-
03-2025 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER
