Kerala High Court
Geetha vs The District Collector on 9 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 35239 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:50467
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. 35239 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
GEETHA,
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O.SIVADASAN, 'VAISAKHI', POONOOR, UNNIKULAM,
MANIDEEPIKA, KARINKALIMMAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673574
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
THAMARASSERY TALUK OFFICE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE, PIN
- 673573
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
UNNIKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE, EKAROOL, UNNIKULAM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673574
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
UNNIKULAM KRISHI BHAVAN, NEAR PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
UNNIKULAM,EKAROOL, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673574
6 THE DIRECTOR,
WP(C) NO. 35239 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:50467
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SC- SRI.VISHNU S.
CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
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. 35239 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:50467
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.35239 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 12.23 Ares of land, comprised in Survey No.13/23 in Unnikulam Village, Thamarassery 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 11.24 Ares of land as paddy land and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application in Form 5 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 Ext.P2 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, Ext.P3 order is illegal and arbitrary, and WP(C) NO. 35239 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:50467 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 Ext.P2 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 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 WP(C) NO. 35239 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:50467 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 reports of the Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer, the impugned order has been 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.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to WP(C) NO. 35239 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:50467 reconsider Ext.P2 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 Ext.P2 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 rkc/09.07.25 WP(C) NO. 35239 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:50467 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35239/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 13.05.2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 08.06.2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER