Kerala High Court
Shaju C.J vs The District Collector on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:58594
WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024
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. 39406 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SHAJU C.J.,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. JOSE, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, IRINJALAKKUDA NORTH
P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125
2 LIJI SHAJU,
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O. SHAJU C.J, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, IRINJALAKKUDA
NORTH P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125
BY ADV SMT. ARYA ASHOKAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, ANNEXE,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
4 THE THAHSILDAR,
MUKANDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, CHEMMANDA ROAD,
IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE, MANAVALASSERY,
2025:KER:58594
WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024
2
IRINJALAKKUDA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680121
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
POOMANGALAM KRISHI BHAVAN, POOMANGALAM, EDAKULAM
P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680688
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58594
WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025 The petitioners are the co-owners in possession of 24.52 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 495/PT 6 and 495/PT 7 in Manavalassery Village, Mukundapuram 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 petitioners had submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P8 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal 2025:KER:58594 WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024 4 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. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' 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], 2025:KER:58594 WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024 5 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 Ext.P8 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 2025:KER:58594 WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024 6 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 petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P8 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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 petitioners.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the application shall be disposed of within three months from the date of 2025:KER:58594 WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024 7 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 petitioners.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/6/8/2025 2025:KER:58594 WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39406/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.
KL08035206728/2022 DATED 01-08-2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PUBLISHED DATA BANK OF POOMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH BEARING NO. B3/2424/2020 DATED 28-10-2020 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30-05-2023 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT FOR EVIDENCING THE SUBMISSION OF EXHIBIT P3 APPLICATION BEARING NO. KL08035204239/2023 DATED 30- 05-2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 14-07- 2023 IN WP(C) NO. 23011/2023 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13-10-2023 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG WITH MINUTES SHOWING THE DECISION OF LLMC DATED 12-10- 2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BEARING FILE NO. 6231/2023 DATED 21-10-2023 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY