Kerala High Court
Shivadasan. V.V vs State Of Kerala on 19 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:69994
WP(C) NO. 25268 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 28TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25268 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHIVADASAN. V.V
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. AMBADI ANTHITHIRIYAN, VALIYA VEEDU,
PALLIKKARA, NEELESHWAR P.O, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD
DISTRICT., PIN - 671314
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.ANUROOP
SRI.M.DEVESH
SHRI.MURSHID ALI M.
SMT.JYOTHIS MARY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
HOSDURG(KANHANGAD), KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671315
3 VILLAGE OFFICER
NEELESHWAR VILLAGE OFFICE, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN -
671314
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN -
671314
5 PALLIKKERA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
2025:KER:69994
WP(C) NO. 25268 OF 2025
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALLIKKERA, KASARGOD
DISTRICT, PIN - 671314
6 THE CONVENER
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,PALLIKKERA GRAMA
PANCHAYAT. KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671314
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:69994
WP(C) NO. 25268 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8.9
Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.695/4-PT 7 of
Nileshwar Village, Hosdurg Taluk, covered under Ext.P2
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.P5 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling
for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f)
2025:KER:69994
WP(C) NO. 25268 OF 2025
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
2025:KER:69994
WP(C) NO. 25268 OF 2025
[2023 (2) KLT 386], and 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.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 personally inspected the property
or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has
merely acted upon the report of the Village Officer
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 light of the above findings, I hold that the
2025:KER:69994
WP(C) NO. 25268 OF 2025
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.P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 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 hand, if the
2025:KER:69994
WP(C) NO. 25268 OF 2025
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
rmm/19/9/2025
2025:KER:69994
WP(C) NO. 25268 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25268/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.
2808/2017 DATED 18-08-2017.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
09-10-2023
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF
APPLICATION FEE FOR CONVERSION DATED 18-
10- 2023
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 18-10-2023
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER OF
THE RDO KANHANGAD DATED 08-10-2024
