Kerala High Court
Thyngoli Madathil Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:61445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
THYNGOLI MADATHIL PADMANABHAN,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O V.CHATHU NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT ‘ANKUR
NIVAS', CHALA EAST P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670621
BY ADVS.
SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
SHRI.PRAVEEN K.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
HIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN - 670101
4 TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE, KANNUR, PIN - 670001
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHEMBILODE, P.O.CHEMBILODE, KANNUR, PIN - 670613
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
CHEMBILODE KRISHI BHAVAN, CHEMBILODE, P.O.CHEMBILODE,
KANNUR, PIN - 670613
WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:61445
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:61445
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 31087 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.2267 hectares of land comprised in Survey Re-No.56/115 of Chembilode Village, Kannur 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 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.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 WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:61445 the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Even though the petitioner challenged Ext.P6 order by filing an appeal before the 2nd respondent, the same was also rejected by Ext.P8 order on the ground that there is no provision to file an appeal. 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 mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of this Court -- including the decisions in WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:61445 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.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 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 WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:61445 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 writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P6 and P8 orders are quashed.
(ii) The 3rd 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 property WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:61445 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 SCB.14.08.25.
WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:61445 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31087/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGD DEED OF PARTITION NO.2023 OF 2007, S.R.O., KADACHIRA, DATED 28.06.2007.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 09- 05-2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25-08- 2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION DATED 09-05-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-02-2024 IN W.P.(C) NO.7997 OF 2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-03-2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 08-04-2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-04-2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY.