Kerala High Court
Anu Antony vs The District Collector on 1 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:57383
WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANU ANTONY,
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O SIBIL JOSE, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR
RAILWAY GATE, ALOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680602
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,MINI CIVIL
STATION, CHEMMANDA ROAD,IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680125
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
2025:KER:57383
WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025
2
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
CHALAKUDY TALUK OFFICE, THIRD FLOOR, MUNICIPAL
TOWN HALL COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, CHALAKUDY,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680307
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KALLETUMKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, KALLETUMKARA,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680683
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
ALOOR KRISHI BHAVAN, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, ALOOR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680697
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
SMT.JESSY S.SALIM, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 01.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57383
WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 2680 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 12.17 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.833/2-12 in Kallettumkara Village, Chalakudy Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land and is 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.P-2 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3 2025:KER:57383 WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025 4 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the 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. In the statement filed by the 3 rd respondent, it is contended that, the Agricultural Officer and the Local Level Monitoring Committee had conducted a site inspection and found that the property was converted after 2008. In light of the above recommendation, the application was rejected. There is no illegality in Ext.P3 order.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the 2025:KER:57383 WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025 5 petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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.
5. 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 2025:KER:57383 WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025 6 12.08.2008, which are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property is to be excluded from the data bank.
6. A reading of Ext.P3 order reveals that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. There is no indication in the order that the authorised officer has personally inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has merely acted upon the report of the Agricultural Officer, who in turn relied on the recommendation of LLMC, without rendering any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no finding whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that the impugned 2025:KER:57383 WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025 7 order was passed in contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated due to errors of law and non- application of mind, and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5 application as per the procedure prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5, in accordance with the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the property or calling for the satellite pictures as provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
2025:KER:57383 WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025 8
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the application shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the authorised officer opts to inspect the property personally, the application shall be disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE dkr 2025:KER:57383 WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2680/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 13.04.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06.05.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER