Kerala High Court
Chandrika vs State Of Kerala on 4 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:57958
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 2016 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
CHANDRIKA
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O RAGAVAN, EYANI HOUSE, PALISSERY
THRISSUR, PIN - 680027
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ
SHRI.JOBY JOSEPH (THRISSUR)
SMT.K.VINAYA
SMT.ADONIYA GIGI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
AYYANTHOLE, CIVIL STATION,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
TALUK OFFICE THRISSUR CHEMBUKAVU,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680022
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680651
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN AYYANTHOLE THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
6 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
WP(C) NO.2016 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:57958
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.2016 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:57958
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.55 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.159/PT2 and 159/PT3 of Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur Taluk, covered under Ext. P3 land tax receipt. By Ext. P4 proceedings, the petitioner's predecessor in interest used 5 cents of land for non-agricultural purposes. The petitioner's predecessor in interest also constructed the building in the said property as per Ext. P5 building permit. As 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), the petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P7 order, the authorised officer WP(C) NO.2016 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:57958 has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery, as specifically 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 legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has been rejected without proper consideration or application of mind.
WP(C) NO.2016 OF 2025 5
2025:KER:57958
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of this Court -- including 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 competent authority 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 merits exclusion 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 the order that the authorised officer has directly inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the WP(C) NO.2016 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:57958 Agricultural Officer, that the impugned order has been passed. The authorised officer has not rendered 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 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 aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P7 order is quashed.WP(C) NO.2016 OF 2025 7
2025:KER:57958 ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P6 application in accordance with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
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 personally inspect the property, the application shall be considered and 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 mtk/04.08.25 WP(C) NO.2016 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:57958 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2016/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DOCUMENT NO.7442/2004 DATED 24-12-2004 OF SRO AYYANTHOLE EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 13-01-2025 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVUNE DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.D.O. THRISSUR DATED 23.12.2004 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THRISSUR CORPORATION DATED 19.1.2005 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 DATED 28.1.2023 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.9.2024 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR), THRISSUR