Kerala High Court
Malanad Communications vs The District Collector on 9 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 38803 OF 2023
1
2025:KER:50397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 38803 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
MALANAD COMMUNICATIONS,
AGED 59 YEARS
MUTTIL,WAYANAD REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BENNY
ALIAS,S/O.K.M ALIAS, KAKKATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE,MUTTIL P.O,
KALPETTA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122
BY ADV SMT. ARYA ASHOKAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE WAYANAD,NORTH KALPETTA P.O, AYANAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 673122
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MANANTHAVADY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MANANTHAVADY,WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 670645
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
VYTHIRI TALUK OFFICE, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN -
673576
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MUTTIL NORTH VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTTIL NORTH,MUTTIL,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
MUTTIL KRISHI BHAVAN, MUTTIL SOUTH, MUTTIL,WAYANAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 673122
6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
MUTTIL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS CONVENER,THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MUTTIL KRISHI BHAVAN,MUTTIL
SOUTH, MUTTIL,WAYANAD, PIN - 673122
WP(C) NO. 38803 OF 2023
2
2025:KER:50397
7 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,1ST
FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN,NEAR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY,UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE
CAMPUS,PMG,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SR.GP SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 38803 OF 2023
3
2025:KER:50397
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.38803 OF 2023
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Company which owns and possesses 21 Ares and 5 Sq.Mt. of land, comprised in Survey No.731/27 in Muttil North Village, Vaithiri Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. 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) before the 2 nd respondent. But, by the impugned Ext.P4 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 on 12.08.2008. Hence, WP(C) NO. 38803 OF 2023 4 2025:KER:50397 Ext.P4 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Ext.P4 order shows that the 2nd respondent has rejected the said application principally for the reason that the petitioner has not produced the requisite documents.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's specific case is that, their 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.
5. 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 WP(C) NO. 38803 OF 2023 5 2025:KER:50397 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)).
6. Ext.P4 order substantiates 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 and stating that the petitioner has not produced the requisite documents, the impugned order has been passed. There is no mention in Ext.P4 order that the authorised officer had issued notice to the petitioner directing them to produce the requisite documents. 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 WP(C) NO. 38803 OF 2023 6 2025:KER:50397 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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the petition, 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 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 WP(C) NO. 38803 OF 2023 7 2025:KER:50397 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 rkc/09.07.25 WP(C) NO. 38803 OF 2023 8 2025:KER:50397 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38803/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.KL12031101215/2023 DATED 13.04.2023 Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF DRAFT DATA BANK Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25.01.2022 Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RDOMDY/12/2022-J DATED 06.04.2022 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT