Kerala High Court
Dinesh Mani K K vs The District Collector on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 8128 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:55229
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. 8128 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DINESH MANI K K,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. KUNJUMON KONIKKAPPARAMBIL, PIRAROOR, MATTOR,
KALADY, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT
KONIKKAPPARAMBIL (H), MATTOR VATTAPRAMBU,KALADY,
ALUVA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.P.S.JALALUDDEEN MOHMMED
SRI.SHELLY PAUL
SHRI.HYBIN JOSE P.P.
SMT.JEFFERCY J.THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L A), R D O,
ALUVA TALUK, GROUND FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION,CIVIL
STATION ROAD, PERIYAR, ALUVA, PIN - 683101
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KALADY,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574
GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K
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. 8128 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:55229
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 8128 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10.12 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.342/12-1-2 , 342/6-2 and 346/5-2-2 of Mattoor Village, Aluva 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 WP(C) NO. 8128 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:55229 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 [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy WP(C) NO. 8128 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:55229 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. It is solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer, who in turn has relied on the recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), that the impugned order has been passed. The authorised officer has not rendered 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 WP(C) NO. 8128 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:55229 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.P5 order 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 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 WP(C) NO. 8128 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:55229 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 SCB.25.07.25.
WP(C) NO. 8128 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:55229
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8128/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DEED NO. 656/22
SREEMOOLANAGARAM SRO DATED 23.03.2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 08/01/2025 BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF DATA BANK DETAILS WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KALADY Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF FORM 5 APPLICATION AS PER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES, 2008 DATED 04/08/2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18/10/2024 BY DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) RDO, ALUVE TALUK Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY