IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 41391 OF 2024 PETITIONERS:

1 ARUNKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. POTHENCHERRY ASOKAN, POTHENCHERRY HOUSE, BEYPORE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673015

2 POTHENCHERRY AJITH, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. POTHENCHERRY ASOKAN, POTHENCHERRY HOUSE, BEYPORE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673015 BY ADVS.

M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY MATHEW DEVASSI ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA ANGEL GYLES LIKE RESPONDENTS:

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, JUMA MASJID, SH 29, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

2 VILLAGE OFFICER, 5RVG+ 627, CHERUVANNOOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673027

3* AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHERUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673027, IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION AS PER THE ORDER DATED 28.5.2025 IN I.A NO.1 OF 2024. .

OTHER PRESENT:

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE-GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 28^th day of May, 2025 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 order and direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Form 5 application 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 in possession of 4 Ares and 90 Square meters of land comprised in Survey No. 72/25 in Cheruvanoor Village, Kozhikode Taluk, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The petitioners’ property is a converted land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the same as paddy land and included it in the data bank. In order to exclude the land from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Form 5 application before the 1st respondent. However, by Ext.P3 order, the 1st respondent, has rejected Form 5 application without inspecting the property or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. The 1st respondent has not rendered any independent findings regarding the nature and character of the petitioners’ property. Therefore, Ext.P3 order is erroneous and liable to be quashed. Hence, the writ petition.

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

4. It is the petitioners' case that, their property is a converted land. The respondents have erroneously classified the land as “Nilam” and included it in the data bank. Even though they submitted Form 5 application to remove the property from the data bank, the 1st respondent, by solely relying on the report of the 2nd respondent, has rejected the application.

5. In a plethora of judicial precedents, 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. Ext.P3 order substantiates that the 1st respondent has passed the order pre-dominately relying on the report of the additional 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent has also observed that, even though he issued a notice to the petitioner to produce the relevant documents, the same were not produced. The impugned order demonstrates that the 1st respondent 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 petitioner's property, as on the crucial date i.e., 12.8.2008, the date of commencement of the Act. Therefore, it is only to be concluded that there ha