Shaju C.J vs The District Collector
2025 Latest Caselaw 2312 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2312 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 August, 2025

Kerala High Court

Shaju C.J vs The District Collector on 6 August, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                    2025:KER:58594
WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024

                               1
           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. 39406 OF 2024

PETITIONERS:

    1     SHAJU C.J.,
          AGED 54 YEARS
          S/O. JOSE, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, IRINJALAKKUDA NORTH
          P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125

    2     LIJI SHAJU,
          AGED 48 YEARS
          W/O. SHAJU C.J, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, IRINJALAKKUDA
          NORTH P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125


          BY ADV SMT. ARYA ASHOKAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD,
          AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003

    2     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, ANNEXE,
          IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125

    3     THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
          1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD,
          AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003

    4     THE THAHSILDAR,
          MUKANDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, CHEMMANDA ROAD,
          IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125

    5     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE, MANAVALASSERY,
                                                          2025:KER:58594
WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024

                                  2
             IRINJALAKKUDA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680121

     6       THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
             POOMANGALAM KRISHI BHAVAN, POOMANGALAM, EDAKULAM
             P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680688


                     GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   06.08.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                     2025:KER:58594
WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024

                                   3



                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025

The petitioners are the co-owners in possession

of 24.52 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 495/PT 6

and 495/PT 7 in Manavalassery Village, Mukundapuram

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

petitioners had submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 5,

under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P8

order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the

application without either conducting a personal 2025:KER:58594 WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024

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

petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

3. The petitioners' 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], 2025:KER:58594 WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024

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.P8 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 2025:KER:58594 WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024

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 petition in the following manner:

(i) Ext.P8 order is quashed.

(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed

to reconsider Ext.P3 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

petitioners.

(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the application

shall be disposed of within three months from the date of 2025:KER:58594 WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024

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 petitioners.

The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.

SD/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/6/8/2025 2025:KER:58594 WP(C) NO. 39406 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39406/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.

KL08035206728/2022 DATED 01-08-2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PUBLISHED DATA BANK OF POOMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH BEARING NO. B3/2424/2020 DATED 28-10-2020 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30-05-2023 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT FOR EVIDENCING THE SUBMISSION OF EXHIBIT P3 APPLICATION BEARING NO. KL08035204239/2023 DATED 30- 05-2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 14-07- 2023 IN WP(C) NO. 23011/2023 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13-10-2023 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG WITH MINUTES SHOWING THE DECISION OF LLMC DATED 12-10- 2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BEARING FILE NO. 6231/2023 DATED 21-10-2023 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY