Kerala High Court
A.B.Reetha vs The Deputy Collector (R.R) Exercising ... on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:58596
WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025
1
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. 6326 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 A.B.REETHA,
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. KRISHNAKUMAR, RESIDING AT 'VAKAPPADAM KALAM',
VADAKKANTHARA, NALLEPILLY P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678553
2 AKSHARA,
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O. SADHANANDHAN, RESIDING AT NO. 10/505,
PERUMBALLAM, THATHAMANGALAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678102
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
SMT.ANJANA A.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R) EXERCISING THE POWERS OF
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE CHITTUR-
THATHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY,
KRISHI BHAVAN, THATHAMANGALAM P.O, PALAKKAD
2025:KER:58596
WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025
2
DISTRICT, PIN - 678104
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, THATHAMANGALAM P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678102
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
SENATE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
GP SMT. JESSY S SALIM
SC SRI VISHNU S.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58596
WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025 The petitioners are the owners in possession of 0.1080 hectares and 0.0930 hectares of land comprised in Survey Nos.3/4 and 3/4-1, respectively, in Block No. 50 of Thathamangalam Village, Chittur Taluk, covered under Exts.P1 and P2 possession certificates. The properties are converted land and are unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously classified the properties 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 properties from the data bank, the petitioners had submitted Form 5 applications, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Exts.P3 and P4 orders, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the applications without either 2025:KER:58596 WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025 4 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 orders, therefore, are arbitrary and unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' principal contention is that the applied properties are not cultivable paddy field but are converted plot. Nonetheless, the properties have been incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the Form 5 applications, 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 2025:KER:58596 WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025 5 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 are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property is to be excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Exts. P3 and P4 orders reveal 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 properties or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has merely acted upon the reports of the Agricultural Officer without rendering any 2025:KER:58596 WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025 6 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 properties would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that the impugned orders were passed in contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the impugned orders are vitiated due to errors of law and non- application of mind, and are liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5 applications 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 and P4 orders are quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 applications, in accordance with the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the 2025:KER:58596 WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025 7 properties or calling for the satellite pictures as provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioners.
(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 properties personally, the application shall be disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/6/8/2025 2025:KER:58596 WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6326/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 04.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 04.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE SECOND PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3947/2024 DATED 10.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE PLOT OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3950/2024 DATED 10.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE PLOT OF THE SECOND PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P5 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY.