Kerala High Court
Saiji vs The District Collector on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:58685
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. 34976 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SAIJI,
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, THANDANAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
ELOOKKARA, KADUNGALLUR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683110
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
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 (DM),
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
PARAVUR TALUK OFFICE, MAIN ROAD,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE OFFICE,
WP(C) NO.34976 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:58685
MUPPATHADAM, KADUNGALLUR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683110
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KADUNGALLUR KRISHI BHAVAN,
KADUNGALLUR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683110
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.JESSY S. SALIM,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
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.34976 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:58685
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 1 hectare and 24.23 Ares land comprised in Survey Nos.153/5A, 175/7-5, 175/7-8 and 175/9-2 in Kadungalloor Village, Paravoor 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 WP(C) NO.34976 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:58685 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.
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.34976 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:58685 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, 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 WP(C) NO.34976 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:58685 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 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. WP(C) NO.34976 OF 2024 7
2025:KER:58685 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.34976 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:58685 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34976/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 07.10.2023 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30.10.2023 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER