Kerala High Court
Rajesh Pilanku vs State Of Kerala on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 21967 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:58848
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. 21967 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
RAJESH PILANKU,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. KUNHAMBU, RESIDING AT PILANKU VEEDU, KOTTY P.O,
PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670307
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.ANUROOP
SRI.M.DEVESH
SHRI.MURSHID ALI M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN -
695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TALIPARAMBA,
MINI CIVIL STATION, TALIPARAMBA, TALIPARAMBA P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670141
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PAYYANUR
PAYYANUR VILLAGE OFFICE, PAYYANUR P.O., KANNUR
DISTRICT., PIN - 670307
4 PAYYANUR MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE
PAYYANUR, PAYYANUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670307
5 THE CONVENER (AGRICULTURAL OFFICER),
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, PAYYANUR
MUNICIPALITY, PAYYANUR P.O.,KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN -
WP(C) NO. 21967 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:58848
670307
BY ADV SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21967 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:58848
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 21967 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 13.76 Ares
of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.87/125 and 87/126 in
Payyanur Village, Payyanur Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 land
tax receipt. The property is a dry land 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 a Form 5 application under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P4 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
WP(C) NO. 21967 OF 2024
2025:KER:58848
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 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
WP(C) NO. 21967 OF 2024
2025:KER:58848
are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property is
to be excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P4 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 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 writ
WP(C) NO. 21967 OF 2024
2025:KER:58848
petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form 5 application, 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
rkc/06.08.25
WP(C) NO. 21967 OF 2024
2025:KER:58848
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21967/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 952/2007 DATED
02-03-2007
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 22-
07-2020.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 30-03-2023
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER OF THE RDO
TALIPARAMBA DATED 18-01-2021
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SITE PLAN (DATE NOT
SHOWN)
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZATTE NOTIFICATION DATED
16-01-2020
