Kerala High Court
Jayasree A.J vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Deputy ... on 2 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:39109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 14645 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JAYASREE A.J.,
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O SULAL,SUDHARSANA VILASAM HOUSE, PADINJATTUMKARA
THEKKUM MURI, PALLITHODU P.O, CHERTHALA,ALAPUZHA
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
JANARDHANAN A.R, AGED 66 YEARS,S/O.RAGHAVAN, ARAKKAL
PARAMBIL HOUSE,PADINJATTUMKARA THEKKUM MURI,
PALLITHODU P.O, CHERTHALA,ALAPUZHA DISTRICT- 688540
BY ADV SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ DEPUTY COLLECTOR
[ D.M],
FOR CHERTHALA TALUK, FIRST FLOOR,
COLLECTORATE,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688001
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THURAVOOR THEKKU VILLAGE,Q889+G39, THURAVOOR THEKKU,
CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688532
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
THURAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR-
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN, THURAVOOR,
CHERTHALA, ALAPUZZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688524
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA,ALAPUZZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688524
WP(C) No.14645 of 2025 2
2025:KER:39109
SR GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.14645 of 2025 3
2025:KER:39109
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order and direct the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P4 application (Form-5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 9.38 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.269/1B-18 of Thuravoor Thekku Village, Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha District, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed and Ext.P2 tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a converted land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the petitioner's property as 'wetland' and included it in the data bank. In order to exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 application before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, without any application of mind and by solely relying on the report of the 2 nd respondent, has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P4 application, by the impugned WP(C) No.14645 of 2025 4 2025:KER:39109 Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 order is illegal and arbitrary. Moreover, the 1st respondent has not considered the fact that the petitioner's property is land-locked. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's specific case is that, his property is a garden land and it is filled with coconut plantations, which are 40 years of age. The respondents have erroneously classified the land as 'Nilam' and included it in the data bank. The 1st respondent, by relying on the report of the 2nd respondent, has rejected Ext.P4 application.
5. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this Court has held that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2023(4) KHC 524), WP(C) No.14645 of 2025 5 2025:KER:39109 Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad (2023 (2) KLT 386) and Joy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
6. In Niyas v. The District Collector Palakkad [2023 KHC Online 9342], this Court has succinctly held that, if a property is land-locked by permanent constructions, roads and buildings, the same cannot be used for paddy cultivation.
7. Ext.P5 order establishes that the 1 st respondent, by solely relying on the report of the 2 nd respondent, has passed the impugned order. Indisputably, the 1 st respondent has not directly inspected the property or called for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Ext.P5 order also shows that, the 1st respondent has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the petitioner's property as on the crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the Act, or whether the removal of the petitioner's property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. WP(C) No.14645 of 2025 6
2025:KER:39109 Therefore, I hold that there has been total non-application of the mind in passing the impugned order. Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P5 order is liable to be quashed and the 1 st respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner:
(i). Ext.P5 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 application, in accordance with law. It would be up to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or call for satellite images as per the procedure provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the expense of the petitioner.
(iii). If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Ext. P4 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as WP(C) No.14645 of 2025 7 2025:KER:39109 possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of the receipt of the satellite images. In case, he directly inspects the property, he shall dispose of Ext.P4 application within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE AJ WP(C) No.14645 of 2025 8 2025:KER:39109 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14645/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO: 870/2013 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE [SRO], CHERTHALA Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.04.2023 ISSUED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER FROM THURAVOOR THEKKU VILLAGE OFFICE Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO:
512/1986 OF SRO CHERTHALA Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 8.08.2022 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.03.2025 IN FILE NO: 759/2025
Exhibit P6 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY TOWARDS THE EAST OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Exhibit P7 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY TOWARDS THE WEST OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Exhibit P8 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY TOWARDS THE NORTH OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Exhibit P9 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER AS DOWNLOADED FROM GOOGLE IMAGES OF THE YEAR 2023 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO: C3-1621/2020 DATED 17.12.2020 PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE NO:
3017 FOR THURAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH