Kerala High Court
Koyamamu Naniyattu vs The District Collector on 8 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 41107 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:59468
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 41107 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KOYAMAMU NANIYATTU,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.MOHAMMED, KANNANCHAL, NALLALAM.P.O,
CHERUVANNOOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673027
BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673020
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KUTTIKATTOOR VILLAGE, KUTTIKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673008
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 41107 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:59468
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 08th day of August, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.429 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.68/5 in Kuttikattoor Village, Kozhikode Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land and is unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously classified the land as 'wetland' 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.P4 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P6 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures as WP(C) NO. 41107 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:59468 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 Senior 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 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 WP(C) NO. 41107 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:59468 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.P6 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 Ext.P5 report of the Village Officer. 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 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 WP(C) NO. 41107 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:59468 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.P6 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 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 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 WP(C) NO. 41107 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:59468 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 NAB WP(C) NO. 41107 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:59468 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41107/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.
2089/2016 OF SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DATED 14.07.2016 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTIKKATTOOR DATED 30.04.2024 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK OF PERUVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER BY RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER FORM 5 DATED 09/11/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTIKKATTOOR VILLAGE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ON 23.7.2024 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01/06/2023 EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER