Kerala High Court
B.P Sekharan vs The District Collector on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52569
WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 B.P SEKHARAN,
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. MADHAVA RAVIVARMA, KALYANI MADHAVAM VEEDU,
CHEVARAMBALAM, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -
673017
2 M.K SREEJITH,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. KUMARAN. M, 28/811A, KRISHNA, CHEVAYUR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673017
BY ADV SMT. ARYA ASHOKAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION KOZHIKODE, WAYANAD ROAD,
ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
KOZHIKODE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION
KOZHIKODE, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
KOZHIKODE TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION KOZHIKODE,
WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN
- 673020
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PERUVAYAL VILLAGE OFFICE, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673008
2025:KER:52569
WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024
2
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
PERUVAYAL KRISHI BHAVAN, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673008
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52569
WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025 The petitioners are the co-owners in possession of 5 Ares and 97 Sq.Metres of land comprised in Survey No.54/17 in Peruvayal Village, Kozhikode Taluk, 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 'paddy land' and 'wetland' and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioners had submitted a Form 5 application under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the impugned ExtP3 order, the 2 nd respondent has perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 2025:KER:52569 WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024 4 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.P3 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' specific case is that their property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously classified in the data bank as paddy land and wet land. Even though the petitioners 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.
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 2025:KER:52569 WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024 5 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.P3 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 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 reports of the respondents 4 and 5, 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 2025:KER:52569 WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024 6 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.P3 order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 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 petitioners.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider the Form 5 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 2025:KER:52569 WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024 7 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 rmm/16/7/2025 2025:KER:52569 WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21774/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.
KL11014106897/2023 DATED 09.06.2023 Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PUBLISHED DATABANK ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING FILE NO.
4479/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 07-10-2023 Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY