Kerala High Court
Kavitha M.B vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 17 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:69186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25292 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
KAVITHA M.B
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. K S SUDHEER, FATHERS ABODE, 24/285,
NAKSHATHRA NAGAR, PIRIVUSALA, CHANDRANAGAR,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007
BY ADVS.
SHRI. GIRISH KUMAR M S
SHRI. AKASH S.
SRI.YEDUKRISHNAN S.
SMT.LIMA.J
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAR,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
AKATHETHARA KRISHI BHAVAN,
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V
WP(C) NO.25292 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:69186
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25292 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:69186
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.16 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 322/29 in Block No. 24 in Akathethara Village, Palakkad Taluk, covered under Ext. P3 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.P9 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P10 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or relying on satellite WP(C) NO.25292 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:69186 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.25292 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:69186 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.P10 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 report of the Agricultural Officer, that the impugned order has been passed. The authorised officer has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character WP(C) NO.25292 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:69186 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 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.P10 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P9 application in accordance with law.
The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the WP(C) NO.25292 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:69186 satellite pictures, in accordance with 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 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/17.09.25 WP(C) NO.25292 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:69186 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25292/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2423/2023 DATED 28/10/2023 IN BOOK NO. 1, VOLUME NO. 608 APPEARING IN PAGES 95 TO 101 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE OLAVAKODE EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.
2547/2012 DATED 16/07/2012 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 18/04/2025 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPPER ACCOUNT REGISTER FOR PROPERTY IN THANDAPPER NO. 18314 DATED 27/11/2023 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE AKATHETHARA VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 23/11/2023 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION PLAN OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE DATA BANK NOTIFIED BY THE AKATHETHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING ITS BOUNDARIES EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 29/11/2023 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING PETITIONER'S FORM 5 APPLICATION EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/08/2023 IN APPLICATION NO. 24/2022/12364 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT