Kerala High Court
Julie Pradeep @ Julie Pradeepan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub ... on 19 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:69989
WP(C) NO. 25538 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. 25538 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JULIE PRADEEP @ JULIE PRADEEPAN
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O. SADASIVAN, P. J. NIVAS, KARAVARAM VILLAGE,
KARAVARAM P.O, CHIRAYENKEEZHU TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695605
BY ADV SHRI. RAJ CAROLIN V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ SUB COLLECTOR,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
CIVIL STATION BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695043
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R. R),
RDO U/S. 2(XVA) CHIRAYANKEEZHU TALUK, DISTRICT
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION BUILDING,
KUDAPPANANKKUNNU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN
- 695043
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KARAVARAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KALLAMBALAM - NAGAROOR
ROAD, KARAVARAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 695605
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN KARAVARAM, KARAVARAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695605
5 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
2025:KER:69989
WP(C) NO. 25538 OF 2025
2
(KSREC), C BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.DEEPA V.,
SC- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:69989
WP(C) NO. 25538 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
5.90 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.210/2
in Block No.40 in Karuvaram Village,
Thiruvananthapuram District, 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.P3
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
2025:KER:69989
WP(C) NO. 25538 OF 2025
for the satellite pictures as 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 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],
2025:KER:69989
WP(C) NO. 25538 OF 2025
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 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 Agricultural 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
2025:KER:69989
WP(C) NO. 25538 OF 2025
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 circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P3 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
2025:KER:69989
WP(C) NO. 25538 OF 2025
receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the
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:69989
WP(C) NO. 25538 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25538/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.
246/2016 DATED 11/02/2016 OF NAVAIKULAM
SRO.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT BEARING
NO. KL01021004521/2024 DATED 28/06/2024
ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT VILLAGE
OFFICER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION NO.
10/2022/83878 DATED 05/12/2022 SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) 33335/2024 DATED
23/10/2024.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.
212/2024 DATED 14/10/2024 PASSED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT.
