Kerala High Court
Rekha.M.S , D/O. Prof. M.K. Sanoo vs State Of Kerala , Represented By on 7 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:59246
WP(C) NO. 34513 OF 2024
1
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. 34513 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
REKHA.M.S , D/O. PROF. M.K. SANOO,
AGED 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT MANGALATH HOUSE, P.O. THRIKKAKKARA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682022
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.N.HARIDAS
SHRI.SAIFUDEEN T.S
SMT.B.SHAMEERA
SMT.NIMISHAMOL SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA , REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, K.B.JACOB
ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682001
2025:KER:59246
WP(C) NO. 34513 OF 2024
2
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KUNNUMPURAM, VAZHAKKALA,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KUNNUMPURAM, VAZHAKKALA,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 07.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59246
WP(C) NO. 34513 OF 2024
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.34513 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 6 Ares and 76 sq.m. of land comprised in Survey No.849/11-4 in Thrikkakkara North Village in Kanayannur 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 petitioner had submitted Ext.P-3 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P5 order, the 2025:KER:59246 WP(C) NO. 34513 OF 2024 4 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 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 2025:KER:59246 WP(C) NO. 34513 OF 2024 5 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 are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property is to be excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P5 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 2025:KER:59246 WP(C) NO. 34513 OF 2024 6 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 2025:KER:59246 WP(C) NO. 34513 OF 2024 7 writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5, 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 dkr 2025:KER:59246 WP(C) NO. 34513 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34513/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.08.2022 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 24.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH ONLINE ON 18.10.2023 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C).NO.43585 OF 2023 DATED 22.12.2023 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07.08.2024