Kerala High Court
Parvathy vs The District Collector on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54881
WP(C) NO. 17086 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. 17086 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PARVATHY,
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O. SUDHAKARAN, RESIDING AT VINAYAKA, VINOBHA
NAGAR, CHILAVANNOOR, KADAVANTHARA P.O., ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
GIRIJA V M, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. SUDHAKARAN P V,
RESIDING AT VINAYAKA, VINOBHA NAGAR,
CHILAVANNOOR, KADAVANTHARA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682020
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.AMJATHA D.A.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682030
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, K B JACOB
ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, PARK AVENUE, NEAR SUBASH
PARK, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
2025:KER:54881
WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024
2
KURIKKADU VILLAGE OFFICE, ERUVELI - THALAKODU
ROAD, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682312
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
CHOTTANIKKARA KRISHI BHAVAN, CHOTTANIKKARA
MULANTHURUTHY ROAD, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN
- 682312
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
7 THE SECRETARY,
COCHIN SHIPYARD STAFF CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE
CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD. NO. E 346. COCHIN
SHIPYARD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682015
8 CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY,
CHOTTANIKKARA MULANTHURUTHY ROAD, CHOTTANIKKARA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682312
GP.SMT.DEEPA V., SC-SRI.VISHNU S.
CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
SC, SRI. VINEETH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54881
WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.74 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 61/2-2-10 of Kareekkad Village, Kanayannur Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 title deed. 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 a Form 5 application under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P10 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling 2025:KER:54881 WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024 4 for the satellite pictures 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 2025:KER:54881 WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024 5 524], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [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 by solely relying on Ext.P9 recommendations of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) and without rendering any independent finding regarding the nature and character 2025:KER:54881 WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024 6 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 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.P10order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 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 2025:KER:54881 WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024 7 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 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:54881 WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17086/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.
1313/2012 DATED 14.05.2012 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.
1548/2003 DATED 31.03.2003 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.12.2002 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PANCHAYATH DATED 25.03.2004 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE FEE REMITTED BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 06.04.2004 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.03.2004 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MINUTES OF THE LLMC DATED 19.01.2021 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S FORM 5 APPLICATION Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY