Kerala High Court
Beena John vs The District Collector on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:58693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1046 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BEENA JOHN,
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O. JOHN, PUTHENVELIL VEETTIL,
MANNANAM P.O, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689549
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
K.B JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R),
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE,
NEAR SUBHASH PARK, MARINE DRIVE,
KOCHI, PIN - 682011
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KAKKANAD VILLAGE OFFICE, THRIKKAKARA,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
THRIKKAKARA KRISHI BHAVAN,
SEAPORT - AIRPORT ROAD, KUNNUMPURAM,
WP(C) NO.1046 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:58693
THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- MT.JESSY S.SALIM,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.1046 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:58693
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
4.03 Ares land comprised in Survey No. 277/9-2-3 in
Kakkanad Village, Kanayannur Taluk, covered under
Ext. P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted
plot and 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.P3 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery,
2025:KER:58693
as specifically 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 legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that
the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
2025:KER:58693
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 competent
authority 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 merits
exclusion 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 directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer, who in turn has relied on the report
of the Local Level Monitoring Committee ('LLMC'), that
the impugned order has been passed. The authorised
2025:KER:58693
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 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 aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P3 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext. P2 application in accordance
2025:KER:58693
with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call
for the satellite pictures, in accordance with 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 personally inspect the
property, the application shall be considered and
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
mtk/06.08.25
2025:KER:58693
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1046/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
14.07.2023
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
13.04.2022 ALONG WITH TYPED LEGIBLE COPY
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.05.2024
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
