Kerala High Court
Bhaskaran vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:70866
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 1ST ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 22281 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BHASKARAN
AGED 84 YEARS
S/O KANDAN KUNJU, MEMANAPARAMBIL (H),
ARPPOOKKARA WEST P O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686008
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ
SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED FAZIL
SMT.AUGNES LOVELY FRANCIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MINI CIVIL STATION, PALA P.O,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KADAPLAMATTOM VILLAGE OFFICE,
KADAPLAMATTOM P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686571
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHIBHAVAN,KADAPLAMATTAM, KADAPLAMATTOM
P.O,ELACKAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686571
WP(C) NO.22281 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:70866
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.22281 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:70866
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
15.80 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 343/12 in
Block No. 12 in Kadaplamattom Village, Meenachil
Taluk, covered under Ext. P1 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.P3
application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or relying
2025:KER:70866
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 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:70866
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.P4 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 reports of the
Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer, that the
impugned order has been passed. The authorised officer
has not rendered any independent finding regarding the
2025:KER:70866
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
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.P4 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 application in accordance
with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call
2025:KER:70866
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
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/23.09.25
2025:KER:70866
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22281/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL05042701276/2025 DATED 04-04-2025
FOR THE PERIOD 2025-26 ISSUED IN THE NAME
OF PETITIONER FROM VILLAGE OFFICE,
KADAPLAMATTAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATA BANK WITH RESPECT OF KADAPLAMATTOM
GRAMA PANCHAYATH PUBLISHED AS GAZETTE
NOTIFICATION NO.A3-521/2012 DATED 06-03-
2012 IN KERALA GAZETTE NO.595/05/GP20
DATED 24.3.2012
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM-5
DATED 25-04-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (FILE
NO.3804/2023) DATED 02.08.2023 PASSED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
