Kerala High Court
North Mount Properties And Developers ... vs The District Collector on 7 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 28954 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:59055
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 28954 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
NORTH MOUNT PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
AGED 48 YEARS, JOSEMONE. K. K, S/O. M. KUNJUKUNJU,
CHEMBAKAMUTHU,ELAMKULAM, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682017
BY ADV SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
K B JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
KANAYANNURTALUK OFFICE,NEAR SUBHASH PARK,
MARINE DRIVE,KOCHI, PIN - 682011
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
MULANTHURUTHYKRISHIBHAVAN,MULANTHURUTHY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314
5 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKASBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
6 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(R.R),
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
BY SMT.DEEPA V., GP
SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 28954 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:59055
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 07th day of August, 2025
The petitioner company is the owner in possession
of 1 Hectare 67 Ares and 20 Sq.Metres of land in
Mulanthuruthy Village, Kanayannur Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 land tax receipt. Out of the above extent of land, 1
Hectare 51 Ares and 75 Sq.Metres of land comprised in
Survey Nos.279/1-2-2, 292/1-2-2 and 282/17-2-2 has been
erroneously classified as paddy land and included in the
data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank,
the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application before the
2nd respondent in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008,
'Rules', for brevity). However, by Ext.P8 order, the 2nd
respondent has summarily rejected the application without
directly inspecting the property. Even though the 2 nd
respondent had called for Exts.P4 to P6 reports from the
Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environmental Centre
2025:KER:59055
(KSREC), wherein it has been specifically state that the
property is observed with mixed
vegetation/plantations/trees with buildings/structures in
the data of 2008, the authorised officer has summarily
rejected the application. The authorised officer has not
rendered any independent finding regarding the nature
and character of the property 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. In the statement filed by the 6 th respondent
it is stated that, the Agricultural Officer has reported that
the applied property was not converted and has to be
retained in the data bank. The satellite picture show that
the applied property has mixed vegetation and pond. Direct
field inspection has reported that the objects are found
with paddy/wetland characteristics and the objects should
not be excluded from the data bank. Hence, there is no
error in Ext.P8 order.
2025:KER:59055
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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.
5. 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 to be excluded from the data bank.
2025:KER:59055
6. 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.
Even though he had called for Exts.P4 to P6 reports,
wherein it is specifically observed that the property is with
scattered mixed vegetation/plantations/trees with
building/structures and a pathway in the data of 2008, and
the same pattern has been continued in the data of 2016
and 2022, the authorised officer has not considered this
crucial aspect, which determines the characteristics of the
property as on 12.08.2008. Instead, the authorised officer
has only 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
2025:KER:59055
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 the Ext.P3 application, in accordance with the
law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 90
days from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment. It would be upto the authorised officer to either
directly inspect the property or rely on Exts.P4 to P6
reports.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:59055
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28954/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
02.07.2020
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DRAFT
DATA BANK OF MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA
PANCHAYATH
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
22.02.2022SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, KSREC DATED
19.1.2024 WITH REGARD TO SURVEY PLOT OF
283/5 IN MULANTHURUTHI VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, KSREC DATED
19.1.2024 WITH REGARD TO SURVEY PLOT OF
291/1 IN MULANTHURUTHI VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, KSREC DATED
19.1.2024 WITH REGARD TO SURVEY PLOT OF
279/1 IN MULANTHURUTHI VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P7 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
REAL NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
REAL NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
REAL NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7(d) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
REAL NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 20-6-2024
