Kerala High Court
Jubeena T.H vs Deputy Collector (Lr) on 8 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:49956
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. 38949 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JUBEENA T.H.,
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O NISHAD, KAROTTAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
EDATHALA NORTH P.O, EDATHALA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683564
BY ADV SHRI.P.A.MUJEEB
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
RDO, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101
2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
(UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF
PADDY AND WETLAND ACT, 2008),
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683561
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
EDATHALA KRISHIBHAVAN,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683561
4 SECRETARY,
EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683561
5 ADDL. 5 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
1ST FLOOR, K B JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM 682 001 (IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
08.07.2025 IN I.A. NO. 1 OF 2025)
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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. 38949 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:49956
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 1.62 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 50/12-2-5 in Aluva East Village, Aluva Taluk. 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. P3 order, the authorised officer 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 nature and character of the property as WP(C) NO. 38949 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:49956 on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P3 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 her 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 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 WP(C) NO. 38949 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:49956 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. P3 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 third respondent, who in turn has relied on the observations of the second respondent/the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied that the impugned order has been passed without any WP(C) NO. 38949 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:49956 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. P3 order is quashed.
(ii). The first respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application, 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.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider the Form 5 application, in accordance with law and as WP(C) NO. 38949 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:49956 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 mtk/08.07.25 WP(C) NO. 38949 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:49956 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38949/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM SECRETARY, EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH NUMBERED A5 859/2022 DATED 07/02/2022 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), RDO DATED 05/08/2024 EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SAID PROPERTY