Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S.DIAS, J
TIJO JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 18181/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Unknown
For the Respondents: Unknown
Government authorities must independently evaluate land use applications, not merely rely on outdated departmental reports.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 - Section not specifically cited - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 - Application for change of land classification - Petitioner’s land classified as paddy land against established facts - Court directed re-evaluation of application based on existing agricultural reports and classifications. (Paras 5, 7, 10, 11)
(B) Administrative process - Duty of officers to independently evaluate land status and not rely solely on departmental reports without conducting site surveys. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed that his property is converted land, previously classified erroneously as paddy land by authorities despite consistent inspection reports confirming its conversion for other uses over the years.
Findings of Court:
The court found the existing classifications were unsupported by factual evidence regarding the land's suitability for cultivation, ordering the property to be removed from the data bank.
Issues: The main issues included whether the agricultural reports provided sufficient grounds for rejecting the application for change and the duty of the authority to independently assess the land's agricultural value.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that assessment reports must include an independent evaluation of land and should not conflict with established facts regarding prior classification as non-agricultural. The law mandates that applications based on outdated or unsupported reports cannot validly deny the property's reclassification.
Result: Writ petition allowed; previous orders quashed with directives for proper classification.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's land erroneously classified as paddy. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. insufficient grounds to classify land without comprehensive evaluation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court insisted on independent evaluations of land conditions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. authoritative decisions must consider factual ground for classification. (Para 11) |
| 5. court ordered action to rectify erroneous decision-making. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 38 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.133/6 of Thottakadu Village, Chenganassery Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 sale deed. Even though the petitioner’s property is a converted land, the respondents have erroneously classified the same as ‘Nilam’ in the basic tax register. In order to use the property for any other purpose, the petitioner had filed an application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , 1967 (for short ‘ KLUO ’), which was allowed by Ext.P2 order. Based on the said order, the petitioner’s predecessor in interest had sought for the correction of the entries in the basic tax register. Pursuant to the said application, the Revenue Divisional Officer (3rdrespondent) had submitted Ext.P3 field inspection report, confirming that the petitioner’s property was converted almost two decades back. There are 21 coconut trees aged more than 20 years and other plantations in the property. However, the 2nd respondent rejected the application on the ground that there was no provision of law to effect the correction. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inRevenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi vs. Jalaja Dileep and another [2015 (2) KHC 109(SC)] has held that, even though the classification of land cannot be altered in the basic tax register, changes can be effected in the payment of tax under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act . The said legal position has been reiterated by this Court inTahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and another vs.Renjith George [2020 (1) KHC 865] . Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application before the 4th respondent to change the nature of the land in the revenue records, which was allowed by Ext.P9 order. Surprisingly, by Ext.P10 proceedings, the 4th respondent annulled Ext.P9 on the ground that the petitioner’s property is still classified as paddy land in the data bank. Immediately, the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 application in Form 5 under Rule 4 (4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 ('Rules', for brevity). But, by Ext.P13 order, the 3rd respondent perfunctorily rejected the application. Then the petitioner filed W.P(C) No.10821 of 2023 before this Court, which was allowed by Ext.P14 judgment, quashing Ext.13 order and directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider Ext.P12 application afresh after adverting to the law laid down by this Court. Notwithstanding the specific directions in Ext.P14 judgment, the 3rd respondent has again rejected the Form 5 application by Ext.P16 order. Ext.P16 order is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
2. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit asserting that, as per the Agricultural Officer’s report the applied land is low lying and there is a stream flowing through the property. The conversion of the land would adversely affect the environment and the water flow. Moreover, the entire property was not converted prior to 12.08.2008. Therefore, there is no error in Ext.P16 order.
3. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner’s specific case is that, his property is a converted land. By Ext.P2 proceedings, the 2nd respondent had held that the petitioner’s property can be used for any other purposes other than agricultural operations. Ext.P2 order was passed based on Ext.P3 field inspection report of the 3rd respondent, who categorically found that the petitioner’s property was converted two decades prior to 2014, and has 21 coconut tr
