Kerala High Court
Roji John vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:71656
WP(C) NO. 26707 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26707 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ROJI JOHN
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O V S JOHN, VENATTUSSERIL, CHINGOLI MURI,
KARTHIKAPPALLY P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 690516
BY ADVS.
SMT.MARIYA RAJAN
SRI.SHINU J.PILLAI
SMT.S.SUJA
SMT.ANN MARIYA JOHN
SHRI.FELIX SAMSON VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
CHENGANNUR, MAVELIKKARA KOZHENCHERY ROAD - SH 10,
CHENGANNUR, KERALA, PIN - 689121
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, CHINGOLI, CHINGOLI.P.O,
KERALA, PIN - 690506
3 VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, CHINGOLI, KARTHIKAPPALLY P.O,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690516
GP SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:71656
WP(C) NO. 26707 OF 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
4.86 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 133/5-3
of Chingoli Village, Karthikappally 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 an 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 calling for the satellite
2025:KER:71656
WP(C) NO. 26707 OF 2025
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:71656
WP(C) NO. 26707 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.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 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 reports of the Agricultural
Officer and 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
2025:KER:71656
WP(C) NO. 26707 OF 2025
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 circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st 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
2025:KER:71656
WP(C) NO. 26707 OF 2025
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 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/25/9/2025
2025:KER:71656
WP(C) NO. 26707 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26707/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
77/I/2017 DATED 18.01.2017
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
09.06.2025 FOR THE YEAR 2025-2026
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.A3/1617/2019
DATED 31.12.2019
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO.
A.10705/2022 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
