Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50512
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
DR. BALRAM ARATHIL CANDOTH – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 101 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.N.KRISHNA RAJA MAULI, SHRI.BINIYAMIN K.S.
For the Respondents: SHRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR
The court emphasized the necessity for proper inspection and assessment of land suitability before classification under conservation laws.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The case concerns the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, specifically regarding land classification and suitability for paddy cultivation. Facts: The petitioners asserted that their properties, classified erroneously as paddy land, have structures preventing paddy cultivation.
Findings of Court:
The court found the respondents' decision lacked proper inspection and independent assessment of the properties.
Issues: The main questions centered around whether the land was appropriately classified and if the respondents exercised due diligence in their decision-making.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that property evaluation must consider its actual condition as of the law's effective date (12.08.2008) for classification purposes.
Result: The court quashed Ext.P12 order and directed the reconsideration of Ext.P8 application within two months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of land classification based on actual use. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. criteria for paddy land classification must emphasize actual land conditions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. court's directive to reevaluate land classification decisions. (Para 10) |
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 101 of 2025 -----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2025 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P12 order and direct the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P8 application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioners are the owners of the properties covered by Exts.P1 to P5 basic land tax receipts. The said properties are converted land. There are villas constructed in the said properties. Paddy cultivation is not possible in the said properties. However, the properties have been erroneously classified the properties as ‘paddy lands’ and included in the data bank. In the said background the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest submitted Ext.P8 application to exclude the property from the data bank. But, the 1st respondent, by solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer/ 5th respondent, has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P8 application by Ext.P12 order. Ext.P12 is erroneous and illegal. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the 6th respondent.
4. The petitioners’ specific case is that their properties are converted land. There are villas constructed in the said property. They have purchased their property along with the villas. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that paddy cultivation can be carried out in the said properties. In fact the provisions of the Act is not applicable to the case at hand. But, since the respondents have erroneously classified the land as paddy land and included in the data bank, the petitioners’ predecessor-in- interest submitted Ext.P8 application, to exclude the property from the data bank. The 1st respondent, without inspecting the property in person and solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer, has rejected the application.
5. In a plethora of judicial pronouncements, this Court has held that, it is 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 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 and others ( 2020 (2) KHC 94 ), a Division Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a property is lying fallow and gets waterlogged during the rainy season or otherwise, due to the low-lying nature of the property, the property 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.
7. Ext.P12 order substantiates that the 1st respondent has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the petitioners’ land as on the crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008, whether the removal of the petitioners’ property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. Indisputably, the 1st respondent has also not inspected the property directly.
