Kerala High Court
Mariyambi K.V.V vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:56451
WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025
1
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. 14257 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MARIYAMBI K.V.V.,
AGED 41 YEARS
WIFE OF N. SAJID, BAITHUL MAJIDA, VELLUR, VELLUR
P.O, PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
SHRI.V.ROHITH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES BUILDING, THAVAKKARA,
KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TALIPARAMBA P.O KANNUR,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
VELLUR VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE BUILDING, P.O
VELLUR, PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307
2025:KER:56451
WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025
2
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, PAYYANNUR, P.O PAYYANUR, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670307
SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 30.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56451
WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.14257 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 11.59 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.100/106 in Block No.17 in Vellur Village, Payyannur Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 possession certificate. 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.P-2 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3 order, the 2025:KER:56451 WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025 4 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 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. In the statement filed by the 3 rd respondent it is, inter alia, contended that the petitioner's property is a wetland. There are 27 coconut trees, aged about 20 years, in the said property. If the reclamation is permitted, it would affect the cultivation in the locality. Obtaining of satellite pictures is not mandate as per the Act. It is evident from the report of the Agricultural Officer that the property is a paddy land. Therefore, 2025:KER:56451 WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025 5 there is no error in Ext.P3 order.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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.
5. 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 K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the authorised 2025:KER:56451 WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025 6 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.
6. 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 2025:KER:56451 WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025 7 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.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5, 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 property 2025:KER:56451 WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025 8 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 dkr 2025:KER:56451 WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14257/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 14.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLUR EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 02.05.2023 IN FORM NO. 5 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY