Kerala High Court
Vishnuprasad vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 23 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 4547 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:45216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4547 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
VISHNUPRASAD,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. SUNDARAN, KORANGODE HOUSE, KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
SHRI.K.V.ANTONY
SMT.A.P.BEELAMMA
SMT.VIJINA K.
SRI.ARUL MURALIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PALAKKAD OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD (DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE UNDER THE
KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT,
2008)., PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KANNADI OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KANNADI
PALAKKAD DISTRICT ( LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND
ACT, 2008)., PIN - 678703
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KANNADI -I VILLAGE, KANNADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678703
WP(C) NO. 4547 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:45216
SR GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 4547 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:45216
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P8 order and direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.24 Ares of land comprised in Re.Survey No.902/39 in Block No.51 of Kannadi-I Village, Palakkad Taluk, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a converted land. The respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application before the 1st respondent. But, by the impugned Ext.P8 order, the 1st respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P5 application, without any application of mind. Even though the 1st respondent had received Ext.P7 report from the WP(C) NO. 4547 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:45216 Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (in short 'KSREC'), as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules and in the said report it was found that the petitioner's property is a fallow land, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned Ext.P8 order. Hence, Ext.P8 order is illegal and arbitrary.
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 converted land and it is not suitable for paddy cultivation. Even though he had filed Ext.P5 application before the 1st respondent, the same has been rejected, without any application of mind.
5. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this Court has held that, it is the 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 WP(C) NO. 4547 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:45216 from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court 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 Joy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
6. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others (2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise, due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda, (2023 (6) KHC 83), holding that the prime consideration to retain a property in data bank is to ascertain whether paddy cultivation is possible in the land.
WP(C) NO. 4547 OF 2025 6
2025:KER:45216
7. Ext.P8 order substantiates that the 1st respondent has not directly inspected the property. Instead, he had called for Ext.P7 report from the KSREC. In Ext.P7 report, it is specifically stated that, as per the data of 2008, the petitioner's property is bordered by a road on the east and there is fallow land on the western side. The said pattern has continued in the data of 2010, 2011, 2017 and 2023. As held in the decisions referred to above, this Court had categorically held that, mere fallowness of a land is not a ground to treat a property as a paddy land. Nonetheless, without rendering any specific findings regarding the nature and character of the petitioner's property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of the petitioner's property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned Ext.P8 order. Thus, I am satisfied that Ext.P8 order is liable to be quashed and the 1st respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance WP(C) NO. 4547 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:45216 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.P8 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 application, in accordance with law. It would be up to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or rely on the satellite images as per the procedure provided under Rule 4(4f). The above exercise shall be carried out in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three 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. 4547 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:45216 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4547/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 2024-2025 DATED 11-7-2024 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3 RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 25- 11-2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3 RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPPER ACCOUNT NO.15233 DATED 5-12-2022 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY ON ALL THE FOUR SIDES OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER COVERED BY EXHIBITS P1 TO P3 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 28-11- 2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-12-2023 IN FILE NO. 10469/2023 PASSED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF SUNIL KUMAR IMMEDIATE WESTERN NEIGHBOR OF PETITIONER Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15-7-2024 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 2 ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN FILE NO. 5243/2024 DATED 14-8-2024 ISSUED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT