IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 20218 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

PRAJILA C.K, AGED 49 YEARS D/O.THULASIDAS, MANOJAM, CHERIYA KOLOTH, NADUVATTOM, BEYPORE P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673015 BY ADVS. SRI.T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR SMT.T.O.DEEPA SHRI.JAYKAR.K.S.

SHRI.C.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTOOLI VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTOOLI P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673017 BY SMT.JESSY S SALIM, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16^th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 12 Ares and 15 sq.m of land comprised in Survey No.35/33 in Re-Survey Block No.1 in Kottooli Village, Kozhikode Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as ‘wetland’ and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P3 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P4 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.

2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. The petitioner’s specific case is that, her property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously classified in the data bank as ‘wetland’. Even though the petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application, to exclude the property from the data bank, the same has been rejected by the authorised officer without any application of mind.

4. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this Court has emphatically 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 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)).

5. Ext.P4 order establishes that the authorised officer 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 and character of the property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of the property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by solely relying on the report of the Village Officer, the impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied that the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind, and the same is liable to be quashed and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record.

Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:

(i). Ext