Kerala High Court
Anu Antony vs The District Collector on 1 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:57383
WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANU ANTONY,
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O SIBIL JOSE, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR
RAILWAY GATE, ALOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680602
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,MINI CIVIL
STATION, CHEMMANDA ROAD,IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680125
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
2025:KER:57383
WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025
2
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
CHALAKUDY TALUK OFFICE, THIRD FLOOR, MUNICIPAL
TOWN HALL COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, CHALAKUDY,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680307
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KALLETUMKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, KALLETUMKARA,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680683
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
ALOOR KRISHI BHAVAN, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, ALOOR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680697
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
SMT.JESSY S.SALIM, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 01.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57383
WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 2680 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 12.17
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.833/2-12 in
Kallettumkara Village, Chalakudy 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.P-2 application in Form
5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3
2025:KER:57383
WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures
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. In the statement filed by the 3 rd respondent, it is
contended that, the Agricultural Officer and the Local
Level Monitoring Committee had conducted a site
inspection and found that the property was converted
after 2008. In light of the above recommendation, the
application was rejected. There is no illegality in Ext.P3
order.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
2025:KER:57383
WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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.
5. 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 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
2025:KER:57383
WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025
12.08.2008, which are the decisive criteria to determine
whether the property is to be excluded from the data
bank.
6. A reading of Ext.P3 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 relied
on the recommendation of LLMC, without rendering 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 the above findings, I hold that the impugned
2025:KER:57383
WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025
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.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form 5, 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.
2025:KER:57383
WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025
(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, 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
dkr
2025:KER:57383
WP(C) NO. 2680 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2680/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
13.04.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
06.05.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
