Kerala High Court
Savitha Abdhu vs The District Collector on 30 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 4338 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:56435
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. 4338 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SAVITHA ABDHU,
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O. ABDHU, PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, ARTHAT PO,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680521
BY ADVS. SHRI.MOHEMED FAVAS
SHRI.P.S.KARTHIK
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL
LINES RD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680003
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL
LINES RD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680003
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
ARTHAT KRISHIBHAVAN, KUNNAMKULAM MUNCIPALITY,
ARTHAT, THRISSUR, PIN - 680523
BY SMT.DEEPA V, GP
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. 4338 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:56435
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10.3 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.35/3-1 in Arthat Village, Kunnamkulam Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 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.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 calling for the satellite pictures as WP(C) NO. 4338 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:56435 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. 4338 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:56435 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 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 impugned order was passed in contravention of the WP(C) NO. 4338 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:56435 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.P3 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 authorised officer opts to inspect the WP(C) NO. 4338 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:56435 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. 4338 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:56435 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4338/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.07.2024 ISSUED BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 21.07.2023 BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RDO DATED 04.09.2024 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/1/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP (C) NO.8886/2024 DATED 07/03/2024 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER DATED 12.07.2024