Kerala High Court
Joseph Selfi vs The District Collector on 8 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:74200
WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JOSEPH SELFI
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. CHAANDI, AZHIKKAKATH HOUSE, VIRAJPET PO, GANDHI
NAGAR, KOORG DISTRICT, KARNATAKA, PIN - 571218
BY ADV SMT. ARYA ASHOKAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GROUND
FLOOR, PATTIMATTOM, MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 686673
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR)
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL. STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKUL.AM,
PIN - 682030
4 THE TAHASILDAR
KUNNATHUNAD TALUK OFFICE, POOPPNI ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683543
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KUNNATHUNAD VILLAGE OFFICE, KUMARAPURAM, PALLIKKARA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683565
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KUNNATHUNAD KRISHI BHAVAN, KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKULAM,
2025:KER:74200
WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025
2
PIN - 683542
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
08.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74200
WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.36 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 388/3-9, 388/4-9 and 388/5-5 of Kunnathunad Village, Kunnathunad Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land and is unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules', for brevity). To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures 2025:KER:74200 WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025 4 as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008 - the date the Act came into force. The impugned order, therefore, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's principal contention is that the applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected the same without proper consideration or application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of this Court - including the decisions 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 2025:KER:74200 WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025 5 Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] - that the authorised officer is obliged to assess the nature, lie and character of the land and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property is to be excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P4 order reveals that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. There is no indication in the order that the authorised officer has personally inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has merely acted upon the report of the Agricultural Officer, who in turn has relied on the recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The authorised officer has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no finding whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light of 2025:KER:74200 WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025 6 the above findings, I hold that the impugned order was passed in contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated due to errors of law and non-application of mind, and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5 application as per the procedure prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, 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, in accordance with the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the property or calling for the satellite pictures as provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the application shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the authorised officer opts to inspect the property personally, 2025:KER:74200 WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025 7 the application shall be disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/8/10/2025 2025:KER:74200 WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25492/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.2.2022 Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 23.4.2022 Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 14.2.2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.2.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KSREC DATED 28.6.2018 Exhibit P-6 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER