Kerala High Court
Premalatha V vs The Local Level Monitoring Committee on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:58666
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. 2802 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PREMALATHA V.,
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. MANOJ, VADASSERI VEEDU,
CHERAYA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678632
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
SRI.T.I.SAFDARSHAH
SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
KONGAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
KONGAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678631
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KONGAD-II VILLAGE, KONGAD WEST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678631
3 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN,
NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
WP(C) NO.2802 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:58666
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033
4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ SUB COLLECTOR,
PALAKKAD, PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- MT.DEEPA V.,
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.2802 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:58666
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 12
Ares and 14 sq. meters of land comprised in Survey
No. 266/11 in Block No. 3 of Kongad-II Village,
Palakkad Taluk. 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.P1 application in Form 5 under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P2 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:58666
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],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
2025:KER:58666
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.P2 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, that the impugned order has been
passed. 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
2025:KER:58666
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.P2 order is quashed.
ii. The fourth respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P1 application in accordance
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.
2025:KER:58666
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:58666
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2802/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ‘FORM 5'
APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
30.11.2023
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2024
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
16.10.2023 IN W.P. (C.) NO.15412/2023 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
