Kerala High Court
Antu Antony vs The State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 19018 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:59466
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. 19018 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ANTU ANTONY,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. ANTONY, KUDALY HOUSE, PUTHUKKADU P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680301
BY ADV SRI.JOEMON ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR,
1ST FLOOR,CIVIL STATION,CIVIL LINES ROAD,KALYAN
NAGAR,AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR,KERALA, PIN - 680003
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,1ST FLOOR,CIVIL STATION
ROAD,ANNEXE,IRINJALAKUDA,KERALA, PIN - 680125
4 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,MUKUNDAPURAM,CHEMMANDA
ROAD,IRINJALAKUDA,KERALA, PIN - 680125
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER PUDUKAD,
RANDAMKALLU, CHENGALOOR, PUDUKAD, THRISSUR,
KERALA,
PIN - 680312
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THORAVU VILLAGE,
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, PUTHUKKAD, KERALA-,
PIN - 680301
WP(C) NO. 19018 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:59466
7 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER PUDUKAD, RANDAMKALLU, CHENGALOOR, PUDUKAD,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680312
BY SMT.DEEPA V, 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. 19018 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:59466
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 08th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 14.47
Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.416/1-3, 416/2-T-1,
416/3, 417/1-1, 417/2-1, 417/3-1 and 417/5 in Block No.27
in Thoravu Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a
reclaimed land long before the commencement of the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008
and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act and Rules', for
brevity). The petitioner's brother, who is the owner of the
adjacent properties, was permitted to use his properties for
non-agricultural purposes as per Ext.P2 order issued under
Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (for
short, 'KLUO'). Consequently, the petitioner had submitted
Ext.P3 application in Form 5 under Rule 4 (4d) of the Rules
to exclude his property from the data bank. However, the
2025:KER:59466
3rd respondent rejected the said application by Ext.P4
order. The petitioner assailed Ext.P4 order by filing
W.P(C) No.40421/2023 before this Court. By Ext.P6
judgment, this Court set aside Ext.P4 order and directed
the 3rd respondent to reconsider the Form 5 application,
after adverting to the satellite pictures received from the
Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre
('KSREC', for brevity) and by personally inspecting the
property. Notwithstanding the specific directions in the
said judgment, the 3rd respondent has again rejected the
Form 5 application by the impugned Ext.P7 order. Ext.P7
is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
2. In the statement filed by the 3rd respondent
it is conceded that the Thorav Village Officer and
Pudukkad Agricultural Officer had inspected the applied
property on 06.01.2024. In the site inspection they
found that there are coconut trees planted in the property
and the exclusion of the property from the data bank
would not adversely affect the nearby cultivation. The
2025:KER:59466
Agricultural Officer has also opined that the property was
converted before 2008. To comply with the directions in
Ext.P6 judgment, Ext.P9 KSREC report was also called
for. The report shows that the property was observed as
fallow land in 2007 data. Nonetheless, Ext.P3 application
has been rejected by the impugned Ext.P7 order.
3. Heard, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. By Ext.P4 order the 3rd respondent had
rejected the Ext.P3 application. The said order was set
aside by this Court by Ext.P6 judgment, by observing as
follows:
"5. In view of the above, Ext.P5 is set aside with a
consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to reconsider the
Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner. If the petitioner
submits an application to the Agricultural Officer concerned
seeking to obtain KSRSEC Report paying the prescribed fee
within a period of two weeks, the 3rd respondent shall pass order
afresh in the Form-5 application within a further period of three
months from the date of receipt of the KSRSEC Report and take
a final decision in the matter after considering the report as well
as the relevant factors stipulated in Rule 4 (4f) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 and after
conducting a site inspection. Petitioner will be free to file
argument notes incorporating copies of the judgments relied on
by him to substantiate his contentions and the 3 rd respondent
while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to
the findings by this Court in those judgments cited (supra) and
also the contentions of the petitioner in the argument notes
submitted by him. The writ petition is disposed of as above."
2025:KER:59466
5. Based on the directions in above judgment,
both the Agricultural Officer as well as the Village Officer
conducted a site inspection. The 3rd respondent also called
for Ext.P9 KSREC report.
6. It is admitted in the statement filed by the
3rd respondent that the Agricultural Officer and the Village
Officer were convinced that the property was converted
before 2008. Similarly in Ext.P9 KSREC report, it is
specifically stated that the applied property is lying fallow
in the data of 2007.
7. Notwithstanding the specific direction in
Ext.P6 judgment that the 3rd respondent shall directly
inspect the property , he has not done the same.
8. Going by Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, if the
authorised officer does not directly inspected the property,
then he has to rely on the satellite pictures. In the case at
hand, the satellite pictures clearly shows that the property
is lying fallow and the reports of the Village Officer and the
2025:KER:59466
Agricultural Officer also show that the property was
converted prior to 2008.
9. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this
Court has held that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness
of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy
cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into
force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained
by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property
from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court 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 and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
10. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents
Association and Another v. District Collector,
Ernakulam others (2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division Bench of
this Court has held that, merely because a property is lying
fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or
2025:KER:59466
otherwise, due to the low lying nature of the property, it
cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land in
contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken
by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue
Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda, (2023 (6) KHC 83),
holding that the prime consideration to retain a property in
data bank is to ascertain whether paddy cultivation is
possible in the land.
11. A reading of Ext.P7 order reveals that,
although the 3rd respondent was objectively satisfied that
the property was converted prior to 2008 and without not
directly inspecting the property, he came to a conclusion
that the Form 5 application cannot be allowed. The finding
is erroneous and unsustainable in law.
12. Since Ext.P3 application was filed as early
as on 09.06.2023 and going by the materials on record, I
am satisfied that there is no necessity to remit the matter
back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration of Ext.P3
application, which will only prolong the miseries of the
2025:KER:59466
petitioner, who has agonisingly been waiting for a decision
on his application for the last two years.
13. In Comptroller and Auditor General of
India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi & Another V. K.S.
Jagannathan & Another [(1986) 2 SCC 679], the
Honourable Supreme Court has affirmed that to prevent
injustice, the court may pass directions which the
Government or public authority should have passed at its
level.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P7 order is quashed.
(ii) Ext.P3 application is allowed. The
aforementioned property is declared unsuitable for
paddy cultivation.
(iii) The authorised officer is directed to remove
the petitioner's property from the data bank and
issue a consequential notification.
2025:KER:59466
(iv) The petitioner would be at liberty to get the
nature of his property changed in the revenue
records as per the Act and the Rules.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,
JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:59466
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19018/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 23-5-2023 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF
THE 6TH RESPONDENT OFFICE
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER FROM THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THRISSUR DATED
27-03-1996 VIDE NO.KDIS-SR.105/96/D1
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
VIDE NO.112/2023/959857 DATED 09-06-2023
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT VIDE NO. 6448/2023 DATED
08-11-2023
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)
NO. 40421/2023 ON 05-12-2023
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT VIDE NO. B5-6656/ DATED 7-
02-2024
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN
W.P. (C) NOS. 26143/2022, 26172/2022 DATED
20-04-2023
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED
30-08-2022 VIDE NUMBER
A/172/2015/KSREC/005479/20
