Kerala High Court
Antu Antony vs The State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 19018 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:59466
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. 19018 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ANTU ANTONY,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. ANTONY, KUDALY HOUSE, PUTHUKKADU P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680301
BY ADV SRI.JOEMON ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR,
1ST FLOOR,CIVIL STATION,CIVIL LINES ROAD,KALYAN
NAGAR,AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR,KERALA, PIN - 680003
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,1ST FLOOR,CIVIL STATION
ROAD,ANNEXE,IRINJALAKUDA,KERALA, PIN - 680125
4 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,MUKUNDAPURAM,CHEMMANDA
ROAD,IRINJALAKUDA,KERALA, PIN - 680125
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER PUDUKAD,
RANDAMKALLU, CHENGALOOR, PUDUKAD, THRISSUR,
KERALA,
PIN - 680312
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THORAVU VILLAGE,
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, PUTHUKKAD, KERALA-,
PIN - 680301
WP(C) NO. 19018 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:59466
7 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER PUDUKAD, RANDAMKALLU, CHENGALOOR, PUDUKAD,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680312
BY SMT.DEEPA V, 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. 19018 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:59466
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 08th day of August, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 14.47 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.416/1-3, 416/2-T-1, 416/3, 417/1-1, 417/2-1, 417/3-1 and 417/5 in Block No.27 in Thoravu Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a reclaimed land long before the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act and Rules', for brevity). The petitioner's brother, who is the owner of the adjacent properties, was permitted to use his properties for non-agricultural purposes as per Ext.P2 order issued under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (for short, 'KLUO'). Consequently, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 5 under Rule 4 (4d) of the Rules to exclude his property from the data bank. However, the WP(C) NO. 19018 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:59466 3rd respondent rejected the said application by Ext.P4 order. The petitioner assailed Ext.P4 order by filing W.P(C) No.40421/2023 before this Court. By Ext.P6 judgment, this Court set aside Ext.P4 order and directed the 3rd respondent to reconsider the Form 5 application, after adverting to the satellite pictures received from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre ('KSREC', for brevity) and by personally inspecting the property. Notwithstanding the specific directions in the said judgment, the 3rd respondent has again rejected the Form 5 application by the impugned Ext.P7 order. Ext.P7 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
2. In the statement filed by the 3rd respondent it is conceded that the Thorav Village Officer and Pudukkad Agricultural Officer had inspected the applied property on 06.01.2024. In the site inspection they found that there are coconut trees planted in the property and the exclusion of the property from the data bank would not adversely affect the nearby cultivation. The WP(C) NO. 19018 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:59466 Agricultural Officer has also opined that the property was converted before 2008. To comply with the directions in Ext.P6 judgment, Ext.P9 KSREC report was also called for. The report shows that the property was observed as fallow land in 2007 data. Nonetheless, Ext.P3 application has been rejected by the impugned Ext.P7 order.
3. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. By Ext.P4 order the 3rd respondent had rejected the Ext.P3 application. The said order was set aside by this Court by Ext.P6 judgment, by observing as follows:
"5. In view of the above, Ext.P5 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner. If the petitioner submits an application to the Agricultural Officer concerned seeking to obtain KSRSEC Report paying the prescribed fee within a period of two weeks, the 3rd respondent shall pass order afresh in the Form-5 application within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of the KSRSEC Report and take a final decision in the matter after considering the report as well as the relevant factors stipulated in Rule 4 (4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 and after conducting a site inspection. Petitioner will be free to file argument notes incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by him to substantiate his contentions and the 3 rd respondent while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the findings by this Court in those judgments cited (supra) and also the contentions of the petitioner in the argument notes submitted by him. The writ petition is disposed of as above." WP(C) NO. 19018 OF 2024 6
2025:KER:59466
5. Based on the directions in above judgment, both the Agricultural Officer as well as the Village Officer conducted a site inspection. The 3rd respondent also called for Ext.P9 KSREC report.
6. It is admitted in the statement filed by the 3rd respondent that the Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer were convinced that the property was converted before 2008. Similarly in Ext.P9 KSREC report, it is specifically stated that the applied property is lying fallow in the data of 2007.
7. Notwithstanding the specific direction in Ext.P6 judgment that the 3rd respondent shall directly inspect the property , he has not done the same.
8. Going by Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, if the authorised officer does not directly inspected the property, then he has to rely on the satellite pictures. In the case at hand, the satellite pictures clearly shows that the property is lying fallow and the reports of the Village Officer and the WP(C) NO. 19018 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:59466 Agricultural Officer also show that the property was converted prior to 2008.
9. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this Court has held that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court 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 and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
10. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others (2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or WP(C) NO. 19018 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:59466 otherwise, due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda, (2023 (6) KHC 83), holding that the prime consideration to retain a property in data bank is to ascertain whether paddy cultivation is possible in the land.
11. A reading of Ext.P7 order reveals that, although the 3rd respondent was objectively satisfied that the property was converted prior to 2008 and without not directly inspecting the property, he came to a conclusion that the Form 5 application cannot be allowed. The finding is erroneous and unsustainable in law.
12. Since Ext.P3 application was filed as early as on 09.06.2023 and going by the materials on record, I am satisfied that there is no necessity to remit the matter back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration of Ext.P3 application, which will only prolong the miseries of the WP(C) NO. 19018 OF 2024 9 2025:KER:59466 petitioner, who has agonisingly been waiting for a decision on his application for the last two years.
13. In Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi & Another V. K.S. Jagannathan & Another [(1986) 2 SCC 679], the Honourable Supreme Court has affirmed that to prevent injustice, the court may pass directions which the Government or public authority should have passed at its level.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P7 order is quashed.
(ii) Ext.P3 application is allowed. The aforementioned property is declared unsuitable for paddy cultivation.
(iii) The authorised officer is directed to remove the petitioner's property from the data bank and issue a consequential notification. WP(C) NO. 19018 OF 2024 10
2025:KER:59466
(iv) The petitioner would be at liberty to get the nature of his property changed in the revenue records as per the Act and the Rules.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE NAB WP(C) NO. 19018 OF 2024 11 2025:KER:59466 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19018/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 23-5-2023 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT OFFICE EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER FROM THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THRISSUR DATED 27-03-1996 VIDE NO.KDIS-SR.105/96/D1 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION VIDE NO.112/2023/959857 DATED 09-06-2023 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE NO. 6448/2023 DATED 08-11-2023 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C) NO. 40421/2023 ON 05-12-2023 EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE NO. B5-6656/ DATED 7- 02-2024 EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C) NOS. 26143/2022, 26172/2022 DATED 20-04-2023 EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED 30-08-2022 VIDE NUMBER A/172/2015/KSREC/005479/20