Kerala High Court
Venugopalan vs The District Collector on 9 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:50294
WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024
1
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. 45252 OF 2024
PETITIONER
VENUGOPALAN,
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, KULAMULLATHIL HOUSE,
PARVANAM, CHELIYA P.O. CHENGOTTUKAVU, KOYILANDY,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673306
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
VADAKARA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,OPP. GOVT. REST
HOUSE, PUTHIYAPPU,VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673101
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (DM),
CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
KOYILANDI TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673305
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHENGOTTUKAVU VILLAGE OFFICE,KOYILANDY, EDAKKULAM,
2025:KER:50294
WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024
2
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673306
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
CHENGOTTUKAVU KRISHI BHAVAN,KANAYANKODE,
CHENGOTTUKAVU,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673304
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:50294
WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 74.78 Ares of land in Chengottukavu Village, Koyilandy Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. Out of the above extent of land, 39.77 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.74/8 has been classified as Nanja (paddy land) in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 application before the 2 nd respondent on 25.01.2024, 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 3rd respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P2 application, without directly inspecting the property. He has relied on the report of the Agricultural Officer/6th respondent and Ext.P4 report 2025:KER:50294 WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024 4 of the 7th respondent as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. However, he has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Ext.P3 order is illegal and arbitrary.
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 garden 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 plethora of judicial precedents, this Court has held that, it is 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 2025:KER:50294 WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024 5 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. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others (2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise, due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda, (2023 (6) KHC 83), holding that the prime 2025:KER:50294 WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024 6 consideration to retain a property in data bank is to ascertain whether paddy cultivation is possible in the land.
6. Ext.P3 order establishes that the authorised officer has not directly inspected the property. Instead, he had called for Ext.P4 report from the 7 th respondent as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Ext.P4 report shows that the plot was observed partially under fallow land towards west and north side with mixed vegetation/plantation/trees towards the south-east side in the date of 2008. The same land use pattern was observed in the data of 2010 and 2011. The data of 2016 and 2024 shows the plot under mixed vegetation/plantation/trees with crops towards west side.
7. Nonetheless, in Ext.P3 order the 3 rd respondent has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature, character or lie of the petitioner's property as on the crucial date i.e., 12.08.2008 or whether the removal 2025:KER:50294 WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024 7 of the petitioners' property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead by relying on the report of the Agricultural officer and Ext.P4 KSREC report, he has passed the impugned order. But, Ext.P4 report does not show that the property is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008. Thus, I find that Ext.P3 order has been passed without any application of mind and the decision making process is vitiated. Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P3 order 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 in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner:
(i). Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii). The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is 2025:KER:50294 WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024 8 directed to reconsider Ext.P2 (Form 5) application, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, 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 rmm/9/7/2025 2025:KER:50294 WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 45252/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 06.09.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.01.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KSREC DATED 13.06.2024 Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER