Bridget M.A vs The District Collector, Ernakulam

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1155 Ker
Judgement Date : 18 July, 2025

Kerala High Court

Bridget M.A vs The District Collector, Ernakulam on 18 July, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
                                                2025:KER:53393

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

   FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947

                    WP(C) NO. 27005 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

         BRIDGET M.A,
         AGED 67 YEARS
         W/O. C.L. JACOB, 32/269 B1 SUNDALE,
         OPPOSITE ANANTHAPURAM TEMPLE,
         THAMMANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM,
         KERALA, PIN - 682032

         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS
         SRI.JOEMON ANTONY
         SHRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO
         SHRI.VIJEESH N.P.



RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,
         COLLECTORATE ROAD, CIVIL STATION,
         KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
         KERALA, PIN - 682030

    2    THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         MUVATTUPUZHA,
         REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
         GROUND FLOOR,
         PATTIMATTOM - MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD,
         KERALA, PIN - 686673

    3    THE TAHSILDAR,
         KUNNATHUNAD TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD,
         POOPPANI ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR,
         KERALA, PIN - 683543
 WP(C) NO.27005     OF 2024

                                 2
                                                         2025:KER:53393


     4     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
           KUNNATHUNAD VILLAGE OFFICE,
           KUMARAPURAM, PALLIKKARA,
           KERALA, PIN - 683565

     5     THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
           KRISHIBHAVAN, KUNNATHUNAD,
           PALLIKKARA,KERALA, PIN - 683562

     6     THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
           REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
           KRISHIBHAVAN, KUNNATHUNAD,
           PALLIKKARA,KERALA, PIN - 683562



OTHER PRESENT:

             SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   18.07.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.27005     OF 2024

                                3
                                                 2025:KER:53393

                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.2 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 176/5-16 and 178/16-8 in Block No. 36 of Kunnathunadu Village, Kunnathunadu 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 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. P5 order, the second respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext. P2 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. WP(C) NO.27005 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:53393 He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P5 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 paddy land. 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.

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 WP(C) NO.27005 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:53393 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. P5 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 report of the Agricultural Officer, the WP(C) NO.27005 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:53393 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. P5 order is quashed.
(ii). The second 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.
 WP(C) NO.27005     OF 2024

                                  7
                                                     2025:KER:53393

(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 mtk/18.07.25 WP(C) NO.27005 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:53393 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27005/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 5-11-2022 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 09-12- 2022 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.20841/2023 DATED 27/06/2023 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10-05-2024 EXHIBIT P4A THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 17-05-2024 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11/05/2024 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD DATED 21-07-2003 EXHIBIT P6A THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN IN 2023