IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 21ST BHADRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 20898 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S:

A NASEEMA AGED 46 YEARS W/O.M.MUSTHAFFA FAREEDHA MANZIL, ROSE GARDEN, 100 FEET ROAD MATHRUBHOOMI, C.N.PURAM PALAKKAD, PIN - 678005 BY ADVS.

SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ SMT.K.VINAYA RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)

TALUK OFFICE PALAKKAD PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARUTHAROAD VILLAGE OFFICE MARUTHAROAD POST, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007

5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN MARUTHAROAD KALLEPULLY P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678005 GP SMT. DEEPA V.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------

WP(C) No. 20898 OF 2025 -----------------------------------------

Dated this the 12^th day of September, 2025 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in possession of 16.19 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.192/34, in Block No.38, in Marutharoad Village, Palakkad Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The property is a dry land and unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it in the 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.P4 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P7 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without directly inspecting the property. Even though the Agricultural Officer had submitted Ext.P6 report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (in short, ‘KSREC’), the same was not considered by the authorised officer. 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. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. The petitioner’s principal contention is that the applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected the same without proper consideration or application of mind.

4. 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.

5. A reading of Ext.P7 order reveals that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. There is no indication in Ext.P7 order that the authorised officer has personally inspected the property. Instead, the authorised officer has merely acted upon the report of the Agricultural Officer without rendering any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as on the relevant date. The authorised officer has also not adverted to Ext.P6 KSREC report. There is also no finding whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In