Kerala High Court
Fathima vs Deputy Collector (La)Rdo on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 16525 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:54963
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. 16525 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
FATHIMA
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O.K.A.MOIDEEN RESIDING AT KARUPPAM VEETTIL HOUSE,
CHATHAMKULAM, MUDIKKODE, PATTIKKAD.P.O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680652
BY ADVS.
SHRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
SMT.K.S.SMITHA
SMT.B.R.SINDU
SMT.REMYA MURALI
SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
SMT.AFNA V.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)RDO
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN,VADAKKANCHERY, ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678686
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
ALATHUR TALUK, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678541
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VADAKKANCHERY - VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678686
WP(C) NO. 16525 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:54963
5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
(KSREC),
VIKAS BHAVAN, C BLOCK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
BY SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
SC-SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
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. 16525 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:54963
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 6.37 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.60/4 in Vadakkancherry-I Village, covered under Ext.P1 partition deed and 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.P3 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P4 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 WP(C) NO. 16525 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:54963 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 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. 16525 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:54963 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.P4 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 WP(C) NO. 16525 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:54963 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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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 WP(C) NO. 16525 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:54963 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. 16525 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:54963 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16525/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO, 2526/2015 OF SRO, VADAKKANCHERRY EXECUTED ON 15.10.2015 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PROPERTY HELD BY THE PETITIONER EXTENDING TO 6.37 ARES IN VADAKKANCHERRY-I VILLAGE EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD ON 05.10.2023 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING EXHIBIT.P3 APPLICATION EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE EXTRACT OF THE PROCEDURE FOR GETTING SATELLITE DATA INFORMATION AND REPORT FROM KSREC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN THE MATTER OF KRISHNANKUTTY MENON VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE REPORTED IN 2025 (1) KHC 647 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2025 MADE IN W.P.(C).NO.11982/2023