Kerala High Court
Jinsmon N vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 19028 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:49906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19028 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JINSMON N,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN, PANAMTHURAVA HOUSE,VETTUKAD, MANJALUR
POST, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678502
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THENKURISSI-II VILLAGE, THENKURISSI POST,
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, THENKURUSSI GRAMA
PANCHAYAT,THENKURISSI POST, ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
5 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISED, COMMITTEE
(KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND WETLAND
ACT,2008),PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENOR,
THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
WP(C) NO. 19028 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:49906
6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
(KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND WETLAND ACT,2008)
THENKURISSI PANCHAYAT,REPRESENTED BY THE
CONVENOR,THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI
BHAVAN,THENKURISSI PANCHAYAT,ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
7 THENKURUSSI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
THENKURISSI POST, ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REP.BY THE SECRETARY,
PIN - 678501
8 THE SECRETARY,
THENKURUSSI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,THENKURISSI POST,
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
9 WILSON,
S/O KUNJAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 55,VETTUKAD, MANJALUR
POST,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678502
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN
SHRI.A.R.GANGADAS
SMT.DEEPA V, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19028 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:49906
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 08th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5 cents of land comprised in Re-Survey No.274/10 in Thenkurissi-II Village, Alathur Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 document and Ext.P2 possession certificate. The property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the impugned Ext.P7 order, the 2 nd respondent has perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the WP(C) NO. 19028 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:49906 nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Subsequent to the Ext.P7 order, the petitioner had also filed a Form 1 application, which was rejected by Ext.P8 order. On wrong advise, the petitioner also submitted Ext.P9 Form 5 application. Hence, Ext. P7 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's specific case is that his property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously classified in the data bank as paddy land. Even though the petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application, to exclude the property from the data bank, the same has been rejected by the authorised officer without any application of mind.
4. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this Court has emphatically held that, it is the nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable WP(C) NO. 19028 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:49906 for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court 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 and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext.P7 order establishes that the authorised officer has not directly inspected the property or called for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of the property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the impugned order has been WP(C) NO. 19028 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:49906 passed. Thus, I am satisfied that the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind, and the same is liable to be quashed and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
(i). Ext.P7 order is quashed.
(ii). Ext.P9 application is dismissed.
(iii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application, which led to the passing of Ext.P7 order, in accordance with law.
It would be up to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or call for satellite images, as per the procedure provided under Rule 4(4f), at the expense of the petitioner. WP(C) NO. 19028 OF 2024 7
2025:KER:49906
(iv) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider the Form 5 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of the receipt of the satellite images. In case he directly inspects the property, he shall dispose of the application within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE NAB WP(C) NO. 19028 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:49906 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19028/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DEED NO.39/2019 ON THE FILE OF SRO, KUZHALMANNAM DATED 10-01-2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 04-02-2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED NIL MADE BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 11-02- 2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THE VILLAGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED ON 01-03-2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PROPERTY COVERED IN EXHIBITS P1 AND P2.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-10-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11- 11-2020 SENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT .
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER FORM 5 DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.