Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48714
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
LEENA SAJI – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 27216 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.K.SOYUZ, SRI.E.V.BABYCHAN
For the Respondents: SMT.DEEPA V., SC-SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
The court ruled that a property’s classification cannot be determined without a proper assessment and inspection, particularly where statutory rules mandate such evaluations.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Rule 4(4d) and 4(4f) - Inclusion of converted land as paddy land in data bank - The petitioner's property was wrongly classified, despite evidence of its conversion. - Authorised officer’s refusal to inspect property or seek satellite images rendered the decision arbitrary. (Paras 1, 6, 8)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Duty of the authorised officer to independently assess property characteristics regarding paddy cultivation before classification. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner contends the erroneous classification of 14.57 Ares of converted land as paddy land leading to the rejection of Form 5 application without mandated evaluations, including inspection and satellite imagery.
Findings of Court:
The court found Ext.P7 order arbitrary as it contradicted statutory mandates, necessitating reconsideration of the application's merits based on direct inspection or referred satellite images.
Issues: The main issue involved whether the property classification followed statutory obligations regarding evidence and inspection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation of the authorised officer to inspect and independently evaluate property characteristics contrary to the findings made.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the order is quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property's classification needs independent verification. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments highlight errors in land classification. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. statutory rules require thorough assessment of land. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court reiterates obligation for independent findings. (Para 8) |
| 5. decision mandates re-evaluation of land classification. (Para 10) |
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 27216 OF 2024 -----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2025 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in possession of 14.57 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.9/2 in Block No.23 in Mulanthuruthy Village, Kanayannur Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. Even though the petitioner’s property is a converted land, the respondents have erroneously classified the same as paddy land and included it in Ext.P2 notified 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.P3 Form 5 application under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. By Ext.P6 judgment, this Court had directed the authorised officer to consider Ext.P3 application expeditiously. Notwithstanding the directions in Ext.P6 judgment, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the property or calling for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, Ext.P7 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 unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
2. In the statement filed by the 2nd respondent, it is, inter-alia, contended that the Agricultural Officer has reported that the applied property was not converted before 2008 and is lying as paddy land/wetland, and has recommended to retain the property in the data bank. There is a pond in the middle of the applied property. The petitioner’s Form 5 application was rejected not only on the basis of the presence of the pond, but also in view of the paddy land characteristics. There is no illegality in Ext.P7 order. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Ajikumar K.V. vs. Vinod Kumar and Others ( 2016 (1) KHC 477 ) to fortify his contention that the mere presence of a pond in a property will not make the property a paddy land or wetland.
5. The petitioner’s principal contention is that the applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a converted plot. Nonetheless, the respondents have erroneously included the property in the data bank. Despite filing the Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected the same without rendering any independent finding.
6. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of this Court — including the decisions 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 [ 2021 (1) KLT 433 ] — that the authorised officer 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 is to be excluded from the data bank.
7. A reading of Ext.P7 order reveals that the authorised officer has not directly inspected the property or called for satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has merely acted upon the report of the Agricultural Officer without rendering any independent finding regarding the nature and chara
