Kerala High Court
Sasi O.K vs The District Collector on 1 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:57362
WP(C) NO. 46286 OF 2024
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. 46286 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SASI O.K.,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. KUNJUMON, 10/450B, AMBADIOOLIPURATH HOUSE,
UDAYAMPERUR, MANAKUNNAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682307
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,PARAKKUNNAM,
VIDYUT NAGAR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
ALATHUR TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678541
2025:KER:57362
WP(C) NO. 46286 OF 2024
2
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THARUR I VILLAGE OFFICE, THARUR, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678544
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
THARUR I KRISHI BHAVAN, ARIYASSERI, THARUR,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678544
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:57362
WP(C) NO. 46286 OF 2024
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 46286 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
27.89 Ares of land, comprised in Survey No.207/7 in
Tharur-I Village, Alathur 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 order, the authorised officer has
2025:KER:57362
WP(C) NO. 46286 OF 2024
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. 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
2025:KER:57362
WP(C) NO. 46286 OF 2024
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 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.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
2025:KER:57362
WP(C) NO. 46286 OF 2024
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 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
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
2025:KER:57362
WP(C) NO. 46286 OF 2024
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.
(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:57362
WP(C) NO. 46286 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46286/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
17.11.2023
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
21.02.2024
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
