Kerala High Court
N.C.George vs The District Collector on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:58699
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. 42465 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
N.C.GEORGE,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. CHAKKU, NEELANKAVIL HOUSE,
WEST SOORYAGRAMAM P.O., EAST FORT,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680005
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
THRISSUR TALUK OFFICE, TOWN HALL,
W PALACE ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PUTHUR VILLAGE OFFICE, PUTHUR P. O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680014
WP(C) NO.42465 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:58699
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
PUTHUR KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHUR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680014
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- MT.PREETHA K.K.,
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.42465 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:58699
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
18.15 Ares land in Puthur Village, Thrissur Taluk,
covered under Ext. P1 land tax receipt. Out of the
above extent of land, 15.62 Ares of land comprised in
Survey No. 329/PT1 is erroneously classified as 'Nilam'
and included 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, as specifically mandated under
Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is
devoid of any independent finding regarding the nature
2025:KER:58699
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. In the statement filed by the third respondent, it
is contended that, the Agricultural Officer had reported
that there are coconut trees about 15 years old in the
property. As per the KSREC validation report, the
applied land was recommended to be included in the
data bank. Consequently, the property was included in
the data bank. Hence, there is no error in Ext. P3 order.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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.
2025:KER:58699
5. 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,
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.
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 directly 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,
2025:KER:58699
who in turn has acted upon the observations made by the
Local Level Monitoring Committee ('LLMC'). 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 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.
2025:KER:58699
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext. P2 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.
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:58699
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42465/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
18.03.2023
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
16.08.2023
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
