Kerala High Court
North Mount Properties And Developers ... vs The District Collector on 7 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 28954 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:59055
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 28954 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
NORTH MOUNT PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
AGED 48 YEARS, JOSEMONE. K. K, S/O. M. KUNJUKUNJU,
CHEMBAKAMUTHU,ELAMKULAM, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682017
BY ADV SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT
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 TAHSILDAR,
KANAYANNURTALUK OFFICE,NEAR SUBHASH PARK,
MARINE DRIVE,KOCHI, PIN - 682011
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
MULANTHURUTHYKRISHIBHAVAN,MULANTHURUTHY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314
5 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKASBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
6 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(R.R),
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
BY SMT.DEEPA V., GP
SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 28954 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:59055
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 07th day of August, 2025 The petitioner company is the owner in possession of 1 Hectare 67 Ares and 20 Sq.Metres of land in Mulanthuruthy Village, Kanayannur Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. Out of the above extent of land, 1 Hectare 51 Ares and 75 Sq.Metres of land comprised in Survey Nos.279/1-2-2, 292/1-2-2 and 282/17-2-2 has been erroneously classified as paddy land and included in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application before the 2nd respondent in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, 'Rules', for brevity). However, by Ext.P8 order, the 2nd respondent has summarily rejected the application without directly inspecting the property. Even though the 2 nd respondent had called for Exts.P4 to P6 reports from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environmental Centre WP(C) NO. 28954 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:59055 (KSREC), wherein it has been specifically state that the property is observed with mixed vegetation/plantations/trees with buildings/structures in the data of 2008, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application. The authorised officer has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property 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. In the statement filed by the 6 th respondent it is stated that, the Agricultural Officer has reported that the applied property was not converted and has to be retained in the data bank. The satellite picture show that the applied property has mixed vegetation and pond. Direct field inspection has reported that the objects are found with paddy/wetland characteristics and the objects should not be excluded from the data bank. Hence, there is no error in Ext.P8 order.
WP(C) NO. 28954 OF 2024 4
2025:KER:59055
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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.
5. 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 are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property is to be excluded from the data bank. WP(C) NO. 28954 OF 2024 5
2025:KER:59055
6. 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. Even though he had called for Exts.P4 to P6 reports, wherein it is specifically observed that the property is with scattered mixed vegetation/plantations/trees with building/structures and a pathway in the data of 2008, and the same pattern has been continued in the data of 2016 and 2022, the authorised officer has not considered this crucial aspect, which determines the characteristics of the property as on 12.08.2008. Instead, the authorised officer has only 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 WP(C) NO. 28954 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:59055 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 the Ext.P3 application, in accordance with the law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 90 days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It would be upto the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or rely on Exts.P4 to P6 reports.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE NAB WP(C) NO. 28954 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:59055 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28954/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 02.07.2020 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DRAFT DATA BANK OF MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 22.02.2022SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, KSREC DATED 19.1.2024 WITH REGARD TO SURVEY PLOT OF 283/5 IN MULANTHURUTHI VILLAGE EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, KSREC DATED 19.1.2024 WITH REGARD TO SURVEY PLOT OF 291/1 IN MULANTHURUTHI VILLAGE EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, KSREC DATED 19.1.2024 WITH REGARD TO SURVEY PLOT OF 279/1 IN MULANTHURUTHI VILLAGE EXHIBIT P7 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE REAL NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE REAL NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE REAL NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7(d) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE REAL NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20-6-2024