Kerala High Court
C.K.Manju vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 17 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:69181
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 20581 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
C.K.MANJU
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O. SURESH KUMAR KRISHNAPREETHA,
SREEKRISHNAPURAM MALAYINKEEZHU,
MALAYANKEEZHU P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695571
BY ADVS.
SRI.DINESH THANKAPPAN
SMT.R.REJI (ATTINGAL)
SHRI.JAYAJOSE RAJ C.L.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
COLLECTRATE, CIVIL STATION,
KUDAPPANAKKUNNU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695043
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE MALAYINKEEZHU,
MALAYINKEEZHU P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695571
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN MALAYINKEEZHU,
MALAYINKEEZHU P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695571
4 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHPURAM., PIN - 695033
WP(C) NO.20581 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:69181
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
STANDING COUNSEL - SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.20581 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:69181
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
6.88 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.167/4-1 in
Block No. 7 in Malayinkeezhu Village, Kattakkada
Taluk, covered under Ext. P2 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.P4
application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P5 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
2025:KER:69181
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 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:69181
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.P5 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:69181
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.P5 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P4 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:69181
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/17.09.25
2025:KER:69181
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20581/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
NO.1080/1/02 REGISTERED AT THE SUB
REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, MALAYANKEEZHU ON
29.04.2002
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN THANDAPER
NO.11057 OF MALAYANKEEZHU VILLAGE DATED
19.04.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION NO.
(98/2023/9304) DATED 18.12.2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.398/2024
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30/10/2024
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO. G2-
1388/19/R DIS DATED 14.05.2020
