C.Vasudevan Pillai vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 8855 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8855 Ker
Judgement Date : 17 September, 2025

Kerala High Court

C.Vasudevan Pillai vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 17 September, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                      2025:KER:69172


               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. 20582 OF 2025

PETITIONER:
           C.VASUDEVAN PILLAI
           AGED 72 YEARS
           S/O CHANDRANGADAN PILLAI, AMBIKA BHAVAN,
           PATTATHINKKARA THONNAKKAL P.O.,
           MELTHONNAKKAL
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695317
           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 - 695571

    2     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          MELTHONNAKKAL, THONNAKKAL P.O,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695317

    3     THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
          KRISHI BHAVAN MANGALAPURAM,
          MANGALAPURAM P.O,
          THIRUVANATHAPURAM., PIN - 695317

    4     THE DIRECTOR
          KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
          VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHPURAM., PIN - 695033


OTHER PRESENT:

          GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V.,
          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. 20582 OF 2025         2

                                                    2025:KER:69172


    Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 6.40

Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.472/6 and 5.40

Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 449/5 both in

Block No. 4 in Melthonnakkal Village,

Thiruvananthapuram Taluk covered under Ext. P3 land

tax receipt. The properties are converted plot and

unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the

respondents have erroneously classified the properties

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 properties

from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P6

application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.

However, by Ext.P7 order, the authorised officer has

summarily rejected the application without either

2025:KER:69172

conducting a personal 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. 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 properties are not a cultivable paddy field but

a converted plot. Nonetheless, the properties have 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.

2025:KER:69172

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 properties merits

exclusion from the data bank.

5. A reading of Ext.P7 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 properties

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

2025:KER:69172

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 properties

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.P7 order is quashed.

ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed

to reconsider Ext.P6 application in accordance with law.

The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal

2025:KER:69172

inspection of the properties 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

receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the

authorised officer opts to personally inspect the

properties, 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:69172

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20582/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 . TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1548/83 REGISTERED AT THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, POTHENCODE Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1071/83 REGISTERED AT THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, POTHENCODE Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN THANDAPER NO.4455 OF MELTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE DATED 17.04.2025 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF LAND IN RE-SURVEY NO. 472/6, BLOCK NO.004(OLD SURVEY NO:2537) Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF LAND IN RE-SURVEY NO. 449/5, BLOCK NO.004(OLD SURVEY NO:1924/A) Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION NO.2/2022/967684 DATED 09.03.2022 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.666/2024 DATED 16/10/2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 6281/2023 DATED 22.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3994/2024 DATED 12.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF SURVEY NUMBER 449 OF MELTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.76/2024 DATED 28.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE RDO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM