Kerala High Court
Surendran vs The District Collector on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54883
WP(C) NO. 13180 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13180 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SURENDRAN,
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, PALISSERY, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680027
BY ADVS.
SMT.AMJATHA D.A.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
THRISSUR TALUK OFFICE,TOWN HALL, W PALACE ROAD,
CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
NADATHARA VILLAGE OFFICE, POOCHETTY JUNCTION,
ERAVIMANGALAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680751
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
NADATHARA KRISHI BHAVAN, NADATHARA, THRISSUR, PIN -
2025:KER:54883
WP(C) NO. 13180 OF 2024
2
680751
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54883
WP(C) NO. 13180 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 16.61 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.230/12-1 of Nadathara Village, Thrissur Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 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.P2 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures 2025:KER:54883 WP(C) NO. 13180 OF 2024 4 as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. 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 Muraleedharan Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad 2025:KER:54883 WP(C) NO. 13180 OF 2024 5 [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.P3 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 findings, I hold that the 2025:KER:54883 WP(C) NO. 13180 OF 2024 6 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.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Ext.P2 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 2025:KER:54883 WP(C) NO. 13180 OF 2024 7 authorised officer opts to inspect the property 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 rmm/25/7/2025 2025:KER:54883 WP(C) NO. 13180 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13180/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.06.2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19.04.2023 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER