IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 14601 OF 2024 PETITIONER/S: TREASAN P S , AGED 52 YEARS S/O SREEDHARAN, POOKKODAN HOUSE, CHENGALOOR P O, CHENGALOOR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -

680312 BY ADVS.

SHOBY K.FRANCIS AGI SHOBY RESPONDENT/S:

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE RDO, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE PO, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

2 TAHSILDAR/ADDL.TAHSILDAR [LAND RECORDS], TAHSILDAR/ADDL.TAHSILDAR [LAND RECORDS], THRISSUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, CHEMBUKKAVU PO, THRISSUR, PIN -

680020

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, AYYANTHOLE PO, THRISSUR-, PIN - 680003

4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE [LLMC]-(WITHIN THE LOCAL LIMITS OF THRISSUR CORPORATION), REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR ., PIN - 680020

5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN , AYYANTHOLE PO, THRISSUR., PIN - 680003

6 STATE OF KERALA, STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 SR.GP SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

--------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 14601 of 2024 -----------------------------------------

Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2025 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order and to direct the 1^st respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application (Form 5) submitted 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

14.48 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.707/1 of Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District covered by Ext.P1 basic tax receipt. The petitioner’s property is a converted land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'nilam' and included it in the data bank. In the said background, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 application before the 1^st respondent to remove the property from the data bank. The 1^st respondent, by solely relying on the report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (in short, ‘LLMC’), has erroneously rejected Ext.P3 application. A reading of Ext.P5 order would substantiate that the 1^st respondent has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and classification of the land. The entire procedure adopted by the 1^st respondent is illegal and arbitrary.

Hence, the writ petition.

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

4. It is the petitioner’s specific case that, his property was converted long prior to 2008, i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act. The said property is not suitable for paddy cultivation. Even as per Ext.P6 report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing & Environment Centre (in short, ‘KSREC’), it is evident that the petitioner’s property is bordered by road and building on the western side in 2008 and the said pattern has continued till 2017. Even in 2022, it is observed that there are mixed vegetations with building structures. These aspects have not been considered by the 1^st respondent.

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. In Rasheed C v. Revenue Divisio