Kerala High Court
Dr. Jeslin V. James vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 26879 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:71669
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. 26879 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DR. JESLIN V. JAMES
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O K. JAMES, VALIYAVILA VEEDU, 2/630,
THRIKKANNAMANGAL, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691506
BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.T.S.SARATH
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
SMT.SAILAKSHMI MENON
SMT. AASHI K. SHAJAN
SHRI.RAVISANKAR C.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF RDO, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691331
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND REVENUE)
CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691013
3 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, MELILA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691557
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, MELILA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691557
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 26879 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:71669
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 20.23
Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.156/12-2 in Block
No.16 in Melila Village, Kollam District, covered under
Ext.P1 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 for the satellite pictures
2025:KER:71669
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 Senior 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 [2023 (2) KLT 386], and
2025:KER:71669
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
fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that the
2025:KER:71669
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 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 receipt of such pictures. On the other
2025:KER:71669
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
NAB
2025:KER:71669
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26879/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
VIDE. NO. KL02041502862/2022 DATED
18.04.2022 ISSUED FROM MELILA VILLAGE
OFFICE
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF SURVEY
NO.156 IN BLOCK NO.16 OF MELILA VILLAGE
PREPARED INCLUDING THE DETAILS OF ITS
PRESENT STATUS
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.5 APPLICATION
VIDE NO.26/2023/17798 SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMA REPORT DATED
02.07.2024 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3-
AGRICULTURE OFFICER
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.64/2024
DATED 20.09.2024 OF RESPONDENT NO.2
REJECTING THE FORM 5 APPLICATION OF
PETITIONER
