Kerala High Court
Beena John vs The District Collector on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:58693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1046 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BEENA JOHN,
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O. JOHN, PUTHENVELIL VEETTIL,
MANNANAM P.O, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689549
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
K.B JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R),
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE,
NEAR SUBHASH PARK, MARINE DRIVE,
KOCHI, PIN - 682011
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KAKKANAD VILLAGE OFFICE, THRIKKAKARA,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
THRIKKAKARA KRISHI BHAVAN,
SEAPORT - AIRPORT ROAD, KUNNUMPURAM,
WP(C) NO.1046 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:58693
THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- MT.JESSY S.SALIM,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.1046 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:58693
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.03 Ares land comprised in Survey No. 277/9-2-3 in Kakkanad Village, Kanayannur Taluk, covered under Ext. P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted plot 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.P2 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery, WP(C) NO.1046 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:58693 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.
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], WP(C) NO.1046 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:58693 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.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 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 Agricultural Officer, who in turn has relied on the report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee ('LLMC'), that the impugned order has been passed. The authorised WP(C) NO.1046 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:58693 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.P3 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext. P2 application in accordance WP(C) NO.1046 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:58693 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/06.08.25 WP(C) NO.1046 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:58693 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1046/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 14.07.2023 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13.04.2022 ALONG WITH TYPED LEGIBLE COPY EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.05.2024 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER