Kerala High Court
Koyamamu Naniyattu vs The District Collector on 8 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 41107 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:59468
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 41107 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KOYAMAMU NANIYATTU,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.MOHAMMED, KANNANCHAL, NALLALAM.P.O,
CHERUVANNOOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673027
BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673020
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KUTTIKATTOOR VILLAGE, KUTTIKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673008
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 41107 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:59468
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 08th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.429
Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.68/5 in
Kuttikattoor Village, Kozhikode Taluk, covered under
Ext.P2 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land
and is unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the
respondents have erroneously classified the land as
'wetland' 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 Ext.P4 application in
Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P6
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
2025:KER:59468
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
petitioner and the learned Senior 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
2025:KER:59468
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.P6 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 Ext.P5 report of the Village Officer.
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
2025:KER:59468
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.P6 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
2025:KER:59468
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
NAB
2025:KER:59468
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41107/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.
2089/2016 OF SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE,
MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DATED 14.07.2016
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTIKKATTOOR
DATED 30.04.2024
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA
BANK OF PERUVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH
OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER BY RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER FORM 5
DATED 09/11/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, KUTTIKKATTOOR VILLAGE OBTAINED BY
THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT ON 23.7.2024
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 01/06/2023
EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER
