Kerala High Court
Thomas Varghese Uluvathu vs The District Collector on 21 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54042
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27957 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
THOMAS VARGHESE ULUVATHU,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. K. VARGHESE, ULUVATHU HOUSE,
MATTOM SOUTH, THATTARAMBALAM P.O.,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690103
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
1ST FLOOR, COLLECTORATE,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CHENGANNUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MAVELIKKARA - KOZHENCHERY ROAD,CHENGANNUR,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689121
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
MAVELIKKARA TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690101
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
THATTARAMPALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690103
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
CHETTIKULANGARA KRISHI BHAVAN,
CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690106
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
WP(C) NO.27957 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54042
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- MT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.27957 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:54042
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 17.70 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 273/3, 273/2 and 273/21 in Kannamangalam Village, Mavelikkara 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. P3 order, the second respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext. P2 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite WP(C) NO.27957 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:54042 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. P3 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. In the statement filed by the fifth respondent, it is stated that, only the property comprised in Survey Nos. 273/2 and 273/3 was included in the data bank. The property comprised Survey No. 273/21 was not included in the data bank. In the site inspection that was conducted by the fifth respondent, it was seen that the property was low lying compared to the adjacent properties and roads. There is also a water canal flowing in the adjacent property. Therefore, it was recommended not to exclude the property from the data bank. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. WP(C) NO.27957 OF 2024 5
2025:KER:54042
4. The petitioner's specific case is that, his 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.
5. 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, WP(C) NO.27957 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:54042 Palakkad (2023 (2) KLT 386) and Joy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
6. 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 relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer and 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 WP(C) NO.27957 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:54042 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 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.
(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, WP(C) NO.27957 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:54042 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/21.07.25 WP(C) NO.27957 OF 2024 9 2025:KER:54042 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27957/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.05.2023 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.02.2024 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER