Kerala High Court
C Babukuttan Nair vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 13 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:75672
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 21ST ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 29233 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
C BABUKUTTAN NAIR
AGED 64 YEARS
MMRA - E82, MIDHUNAM, MUTTAMPURAM LANE,
SREEKARYAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695017
BY ADVS.
SMT.APARNNA S.
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SHRI.SHINTO MATHEW ABRAHAM
SHRI.MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS
SHRI.KARTHIK RAJAGOPAL
SHRI.KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW
SHRI.NOEL NINAN NINAN
SHRI.ADEEN NAZAR
SHRI.ARUN JOSEPH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION ROAD,
KUDAPPANKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
2 VILLAGE OFFICER
ULIYAZHATHARA, POWDIKONAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695588
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, SREEKARIYAM, POWDIKONAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695588
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.29233 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:75672
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 15.4 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos. 430/13 and 430/21 in Block No. 14 in Uliyazhathura Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, covered under Ext. P4 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.P10 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P11 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal WP(C) NO.29233 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:75672 inspection of the land or relying 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], WP(C) NO.29233 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:75672 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.P11 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 Village Officer, that the impugned order has been passed. The authorised officer has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as on the relevant date. WP(C) NO.29233 OF 2025 5
2025:KER:75672 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.P11 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P10 application in accordance with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.WP(C) NO.29233 OF 2025 6
2025:KER:75672 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/13.10.25 WP(C) NO.29233 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:75672 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29233/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 438/2008 DATED 23.01.2008 Exhibit P2. A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 5583/2007 DATED 26.12.2007 Exhibit P3. A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1527/2014 DATED 21.04.2014 Exhibit P4. THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.05.2025 Exhibit P5. THE TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPPER ACCOUNT REGISTER FOR PROPERTY IN THANDAPPER NO. 17223 DATED 28.07.2025 Exhibit P6. THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE POTHENCODE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 22.05.2025 Exhibit P7. THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Exhibit P8. THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE DATA BANK NOTIFIED BY THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION Exhibit P9. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Exhibit P10. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 19.05.2023 Exhibit P11. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2024 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING PETITIONER'S FORM 5 APPLICATION Exhibit P12. A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 22.05.2025