Kerala High Court
Rajesh Pilanku vs State Of Kerala on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 21967 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:58848
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. 21967 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
RAJESH PILANKU,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. KUNHAMBU, RESIDING AT PILANKU VEEDU, KOTTY P.O,
PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670307
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.ANUROOP
SRI.M.DEVESH
SHRI.MURSHID ALI M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN -
695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TALIPARAMBA,
MINI CIVIL STATION, TALIPARAMBA, TALIPARAMBA P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670141
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PAYYANUR
PAYYANUR VILLAGE OFFICE, PAYYANUR P.O., KANNUR
DISTRICT., PIN - 670307
4 PAYYANUR MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE
PAYYANUR, PAYYANUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670307
5 THE CONVENER (AGRICULTURAL OFFICER),
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, PAYYANUR
MUNICIPALITY, PAYYANUR P.O.,KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN -
WP(C) NO. 21967 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:58848
670307
BY ADV SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21967 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:58848
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 21967 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 13.76 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.87/125 and 87/126 in Payyanur Village, Payyanur Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt. The property is a dry land 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 a Form 5 application under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P4 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 WP(C) NO. 21967 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:58848 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. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. 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.
4. 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 12.08.2008, which WP(C) NO. 21967 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:58848 are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property is to be excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P4 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 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 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 WP(C) NO. 21967 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:58848 petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed. (ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form 5 application, 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.
(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 rkc/06.08.25 WP(C) NO. 21967 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:58848 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21967/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 952/2007 DATED 02-03-2007 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 22- 07-2020.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30-03-2023 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER OF THE RDO TALIPARAMBA DATED 18-01-2021 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SITE PLAN (DATE NOT SHOWN) Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZATTE NOTIFICATION DATED 16-01-2020