Kerala High Court
Anilkumar K vs The District Collector on 30 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:56395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1782 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANILKUMAR K.,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. GOVINDAN,
RESIDING AT SREEGOVINDAM,
CHEVARAMBALAM P.O.,
CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR,
KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHEVAYUR VILLAGE, CHEVAYUR,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.1782 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:56395
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.1364 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 259/8C of Chevayur Village, Kozhikode Taluk covered under Ext. P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted plot and 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 relying on satellite WP(C) NO.1782 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:56395 imagery, as specifically 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 legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has been rejected without proper consideration or application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, WP(C) NO.1782 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:56395 Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the competent authority 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 merits exclusion 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 directly 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 Village Officer, 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 WP(C) NO.1782 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:56395 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 aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P3 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 application in accordance with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner. WP(C) NO.1782 OF 2025 6
2025:KER:56395 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 personally inspect the property, the application shall be considered and 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 mtk/30.07.25 WP(C) NO.1782 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:56395 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1782/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEVAYUR DATED 02.09.2024 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER FORM 5 DATED 04/04/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27/10/2023 EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER