Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Kerala) – Removal from Data Bank – Independent Assessment by Revenue Divisional Officer – Satellite Imagery.
- Court: High Court of Kerala
- Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.S. Dias
- Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 34449 of 2024, 9th June 2025
- Citation: 2025 KER 40084 : 2025 (6) KLR 92 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2139
Facts: The petitioner, co-owner of 4.71 ares of land in Ettumanoor Village, sought removal of the property from the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, as it was erroneously classified as paddy land. The property, originally 32.77 ares, was reduced due to acquisitions for a state highway and bypass. The petitioner’s Form 5 application was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) vide Ext.P11, which was quashed by the court in Ext.P13, directing reconsideration with reference to legal precedents and satellite imagery. The RDO’s subsequent Ext.P15 order again rejected the application, prompting the present writ petition.
Issues:
- Whether the RDO’s Ext.P15 order complied with the court’s directions in Ext.P13 for independent assessment.
- Whether the property, fallow and landlocked, qualifies as paddy land under the Act.
- Whether the property’s removal from the data bank would affect paddy cultivation.
Held:
- The court quashed Ext.P15, finding that the RDO failed to independently evaluate the property’s nature as on 12.08.2008, as directed in Ext.P13, and merely reiterated earlier findings.
- Relying on precedents, including Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591], Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], and Niyas v. District Collector, Palakkad [2023 KHC 9342], the court held that fallow, low-lying, or landlocked land does not automatically qualify as paddy land under the Act unless cultivable and its removal adversely affects adjoining fields.
- The Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) report confirmed the property as fallow since 2008, landlocked by roads, and unsuitable for paddy cultivation. The RDO’s reliance on the report without independent assessment was erroneous.
- The court allowed the writ petition, declared the property unsuitable for paddy cultivation, directed its removal from the data bank, and permitted the petitioner to update revenue records accordingly.
Key Observations:
- The classification of land must reflect ground reality, not merely revenue records (Aishabeevi v. Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam [2014 (3) KHC 678]).
- Satellite imagery, under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, constitutes substantial evidence if no direct inspection is conducted, and cannot be disregarded without cogent justification.
- Prolonged delays in resolving such applications cause injustice, warranting direct court intervention (Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan [(1986) 2 SCC 679]).
Result: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P15 quashed; property to be removed from data bank.
