Kerala High Court
Santhosh S vs State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 15127 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:54969
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. 15127 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SANTHOSH S,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O SIVADASAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, KAZHUTHURUTTY
P.O., EDAPPALAYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691309
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
SMT.JOLIMA GEORGE
SMT.C.B.SABEELA
SMT.APARNA G.
SMT.SHYLAKUMARI C.C.
SHRI.AIVIN ALEX PHILIP
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN - 686002
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
O/O REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR, PIN -
691305
4 THE TAHSILDHAR,
PUNALUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, PUNALUR, PIN - 691305
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PUNALUR VILLAGE OFFICE,PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691333
WP(C) NO. 15127 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54969
6 THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER & CONVENOR,
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,KRISHI BHAVAN,
PUNALUR, KALAYANAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691331
7 THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE (KSREC),
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR,
PIN - 695033
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 15127 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:54969
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.05 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.384/1B in Block No.1 in Punalur Village, Punalur Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 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.P4 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P5 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any WP(C) NO. 15127 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:54969 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 Senior 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 [2023 (2) KLT 386], and WP(C) NO. 15127 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:54969 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.P5 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 WP(C) NO. 15127 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:54969 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.P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 3rd 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 Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the application shall be disposed of within three months WP(C) NO. 15127 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:54969 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 NAB WP(C) NO. 15127 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:54969 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15127/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED VIDE NO.
2070/1/21 DATED 16.09.2021 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE NO.KL02061201749/2023 DATED 15.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.08.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE FILE NO. 597/2024 DATED 16.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE PROCEEDINGS RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.22/2023 DATED 07.02.2023 ISSUED BY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ,PUNALUR ANNEXURE R3(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND