Kerala High Court
Balakrishnan Nair vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 20 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO.13040 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:43529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13040 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
AGED 83 YEARS
S/O LATE RAMAN NAIR, KOLATHERI, POONITHURA VILLAGE,
KANAYANNUR, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682312
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
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,
PATTANCHERRY, OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
PATTANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, ( LOCAL LEVEL
MONITORING COMMITTEE UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF
PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT, 2008), PIN - 678532
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PATTANCHERRY VILLAGE, PATTANCHERRY, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678532
WP(C) NO.13040 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:43529
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.13040 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:43529
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.13040 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5 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 9.49 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.440/1-4 and 441/2-3 in Block No.48 of Pattancherry Village, Palakkad District covered under Ext.P1 possession certificate. The petitioner's property is a 'converted land'. But, the respondents have erroneously classified the same as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank. In order to exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted a Ext.P3 application before the 1st respondent. WP(C) NO.13040 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:43529 However, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, the 1st respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P3 application without any application of mind. Ext.P4 order is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's specific case is that, his property is a 'converted land', and is not suitable for paddy cultivation. Even though he had submitted Ext.P3 application to exclude the property from the data bank, the same has been rejected by the 1 st respondent without adhering to the Act and the Rules.
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.13040 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:43529 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. Ext.P4 order substantiates that the 1st respondent has not directly inspected the property or called for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature, character or lie of the petitioner's property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the exclusion of the petitioner's property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality. Thus, I am convinced and satisfied that Ext.P4 order has been passed without any application of mind, and the same is liable to be quashed and the 1 st respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in WP(C) NO.13040 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:43529 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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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) at the expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Ext.P3 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of the receipt of the satellite images. However, if he directly inspects the property, he shall dispose of the WP(C) NO.13040 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:43529 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 SCB.20.06.25.
WP(C) NO.13040 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:43529 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13040/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 05-4-2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3 RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPPER ACCOUNT NO.5875 DATED 13-4-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 13-4-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN FILE NO.
10341/2023 DATED 29-12-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT