Kerala High Court
Radha Damodaran vs The District Collector on 15 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52180
WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RADHA DAMODARAN,
AGED 73 YEARS
W/O DAMODARAN, 33/1812 SRIRANJINI KOVILAKAM ROAD,
MANJERI P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676121
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DAJISH JOHN
SHRI.ANANDHU K.S
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
DISTRICT COLLECTORATE,DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE COLLECTORATE,CIVIL STATION P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,CIVIL
STATION JUMA MASJID, SH29, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673020
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2025:KER:52180
WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025
2
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER,RAMANATUKARA -
FAROOK COLLEGE RD,CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN - 673631
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
RAMANATTUKARA VILLAGE,CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN -
673631
SMT.JESSY S.SALIM, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 15.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52180
WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.6872 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10 Ares and 72.6 square metres of land comprised in Survey Nos.341/394 and 341/395 in Ramanattukara Village, Kozhikode, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'wetland' and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer has 2025:KER:52180 WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025 4 perfunctorily rejected Ext.P2 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P4 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's specific case is that, her property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously classified in the data bank as wetland. Even though the petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application, to exclude the property from the data bank, the same has been rejected by the authorised officer without any application of mind.
2025:KER:52180 WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025 5
4. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this Court has emphatically held that, it is the 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)).
5. Ext.P4 order establishes that the authorised officer has not directly inspected the property or called for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of 2025:KER:52180 WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025 6 the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of the property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by solely relying on the report of the Village Officer, the impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied that the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind, and the same is liable to be quashed and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
2025:KER:52180
WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025
7
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 application, in accordance with law. It would be up to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or call for satellite images, as per the procedure provided under Rule 4(4f), at the expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Ext.P2 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of the receipt of the satellite images. In case he directly inspects the property, he shall dispose of the application within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE dkr 2025:KER:52180 WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6872/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, RAMANATTUKARA VILLAGE DATED 15.11.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 21.02.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2 ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08.12.2023 IN WPC 41025 OF 23 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2024 BEARING FILE NO. 1914 OF 2024 ISSUED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER