Kerala High Court
Nandakumar.P.K vs Sub Collector on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 43364 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:58842
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. 43364 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
NANDAKUMAR.P.K.,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR, VALLIYL HOUSE, ERAMANGALAM,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679587
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SHRI.SAURAV THAMPAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SUB COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
TANUR KRISHI BHAVAN, TANUR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676302
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
PARIYAPURAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PARIYAPURAM.P.O,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 67630
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.DEEPA V
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. 43364 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:58842
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 43364 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 57 cents of
land comprised in Survey No.135/6-2 in Pariyapuram Village,
Tirur Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The
property 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
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
regarding the nature and character of the land as it existed on
WP(C) NO. 43364 OF 2024
2025:KER:58842
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
are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property is
WP(C) NO. 43364 OF 2024
2025:KER:58842
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
petition in the following manner:
WP(C) NO. 43364 OF 2024
2025:KER:58842
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st 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. 43364 OF 2024
2025:KER:58842
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43364/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
17/08/2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
VILLAGE OFFICER PARIYAPURAM VILLAGE
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2021
(1) KHC 540 (JOY.K.K VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR & ORS
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2023
(6) KHC 83 (APARNA SASI MENON V. REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANOR)
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 30.07.2024
