'Insensitive Attitude Of Few Erode Entire System': Kerala High Court Denounces RDO's Conduct But Vacates 10K Costs Imposed On Him

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal against a Single Bench's order imposing Rs. 10,000 costs upon a Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO).

“this case limpidly reflects the manner in which some officers act in apparent disregard to the statutory and constitutional rights of the citizens of this nation. The insensitivity and lackadaisical attitude a few of them exhibit in discharge of their public duties and statutory obligations erode the entire system of its integrity and bring the system to disrepute. We have no doubt that this is precisely what persuaded the learned Single Judge to impose costs as an imperative for deterrence,” the Court remarked.

The petitioner before the Single Bench was the wife of an owner of a property that was converted decades ago. She and her husband had constructed a residential building on the property and wanting to change its nature in the revenue records, he preferred a Form 6 application under Section 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

The application was rejected by the RDO and this was appealed against. As there was considerable delay in considering the appeal, the petitioner's husband approached the High Court in W.P(C) No. 36392/2023 and the District Collector was directed to expeditiously consider the same.

The District Collector remitted the application back to the RDO for reconsideration and to examine whether the property was included in the data bank. Again, the application was rejected stating that the property was included in the data bank when in reality, it was not. Aggrieved, the writ petition was filed.

The Single Judge examined the data bank along with other documents, and remarked that the petitioner's property was not included in the data bank. Noting that the RDO had perfunctorily passed the rejection order without looking into the records, the Single Judge imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the person that passed the order in his capacity as authorized officer/RDO.

Challenging the Single Bench's order, the official respondents including the RDO, District Collector, Agricultural Officer and Village Officer concerned, preferred the present appeal.

The government pleader representing the appellants contended that the order challenged in the petition was not an order but merely a communication informing that the application cannot be considered. Therefore, imposing costs on the RDO was unfair.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the appeal was an abuse of process of law and not maintainable since the order to pay costs was on the person was the authorized officer, not the other officials. He also contended that the imposition of costs was justified.

Looking at the facts of the case, the Division Bench was also of the opinion that the officer acted in a callous manner and without necessary care. Since the costs were imposed on the person holding the post, the Court's view was that the present appeal was unnecessary:

“Without doubt, the learned Single Judge has not mulcted any liability on the RDO, Tirur, but on the person who occupied that office at the time when…order was issued. From that perspective, we are also of the firm view that this appeal was not necessary to have been filed by the appellants in their official capacity…”

After examining the Single Bench's order, the Court was of the view that the part of the order imposing costs can be vacated, especially since the officer holding the post was not arrayed or heard:

“While we are in full affirmation with what the learned Single Judge has ordered, we are of the view that it would only lend to curial magnanimity to show lenitude and spare the officer of a pecuniary impost; also since he has not been arrayed in this case, nor his version called for; though the orders reflect absence of requisite care limpidly. However, his actions certainly are unbecoming of the office he was occupying; and we are of the view that, instead of the costs imposed, it would suffice that we record disapproval strongly and in the most definite voice, which we do hereby.”

Thus, it disposed of the appeal.

Case No: WA No. 58 of 2026

Case Title: The District Collector and Ors. v. Sujaya A.B.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 242

Counsel for the appellants: B.S. Syamanthak – Government Pleader

Counsel for the respondent: N.M. Madhu

Click to Read/Download Judgment

Click to Read/Download Judgment in WP(C) No. 24043 of 2024