Kerala High Court
Kavitha M.B vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 17 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:69186
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. 25292 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
KAVITHA M.B
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. K S SUDHEER, FATHERS ABODE, 24/285,
NAKSHATHRA NAGAR, PIRIVUSALA, CHANDRANAGAR,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007
BY ADVS.
SHRI. GIRISH KUMAR M S
SHRI. AKASH S.
SRI.YEDUKRISHNAN S.
SMT.LIMA.J
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAR,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
AKATHETHARA KRISHI BHAVAN,
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V
WP(C) NO.25292 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:69186
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.25292 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:69186
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
3.16 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 322/29 in
Block No. 24 in Akathethara Village, Palakkad 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 petitioner had submitted Ext.P9 application in
Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by
Ext.P10 order, the authorised officer has summarily
rejected the application without either conducting a
personal inspection of the land or relying on satellite
2025:KER:69186
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. 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],
2025:KER:69186
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.P10 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
2025:KER:69186
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:
i. Ext.P10 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P9 application in accordance with law.
The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal
inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the
2025:KER:69186
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
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:69186
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25292/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2423/2023
DATED 28/10/2023 IN BOOK NO. 1, VOLUME
NO. 608 APPEARING IN PAGES 95 TO 101 OF
THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE OLAVAKODE
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.
2547/2012 DATED 16/07/2012
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
18/04/2025
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPPER ACCOUNT
REGISTER FOR PROPERTY IN THANDAPPER NO.
18314 DATED 27/11/2023
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE
AKATHETHARA VILLAGE OFFICE DATED
23/11/2023
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION PLAN OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE
DATA BANK NOTIFIED BY THE AKATHETHARA
GRAMA PANCHAYAT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY SHOWING ITS BOUNDARIES
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S FORM 5
APPLICATION DATED 29/11/2023
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2025
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING
PETITIONER'S FORM 5 APPLICATION
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/08/2023
IN APPLICATION NO. 24/2022/12364 OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT
