Kerala High Court
Chandran vs District Collector on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:60922
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 CHANDRAN,
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O. PONNU, ERATTAKKULAM HOUSE, THEKKETHARA,
MELARCODE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678703
2 PADMAVATHY,
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O. CHANDRAN, ERATTAKKULAM HOUSE, THEKKETHARA,
MELARCODE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678703
BY ADV SRI.P.R.VENKATESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678001
3 TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678541
4 MELARCODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MELARCODE, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678703
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, MELARCODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678703
WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:60922
6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, MELARCODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678703
BY ADV SRI.BABY MATHEW
SMT.DEEPA V, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:60922
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025 The 2nd petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.1259 hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.73/1-1 in Block No.25 in Melarcode Village, Alathur Taluk, covered under document No.655/2021 of the SRO, Alathur. 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 1st petitioner had submitted an application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P2 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:60922 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 petitioners' 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 WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:60922 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.P2 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 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 WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:60922 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 writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P2 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 WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:60922 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 NAB WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:60922 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16784/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.3.2019 RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2023 OF THE RDO EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 11.12.2021 PASSED BY THE LOK ADALATH EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 30.11.2021 FROM THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR TO BIJU K.V EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 22.8.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RDO EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12.5.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BEFORE THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 9.6.2023 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.1.2024 FROM THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER EVIDENCING FORWARDING OF REPORT BY THE KSREC DATED 26.11.2019 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10.1.2024 FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MELARCODE EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 15.10.2022