Kerala High Court
Aravindakshan vs The District Collector, Palakkad on 11 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:59880
WP(C) NO. 10112 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 10112 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ARAVINDAKSHAN,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.LATE SANKARAN NAIR, KUTTIKODE HOUSE,
VADAKKETHARA, P.O. PAZHAYANNUR, THALAPILLY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680587
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.JAYARAM
SHRI.O.M.RAVI
SRI.P.B.AJOY
SHRI.A.M.THOMAS (AYKAN)
SHRI.NANDHA KUMAR V.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678013
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR, OTTAPALAM,
COURT RD, OTTAPALAM, KERALA, PIN - 679101
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
CONVENOR OF THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
VANIYAMKULAM-I VILLAGE, P.O VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 679522
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
2025:KER:59880
WP(C) NO. 10112 OF 2025
2
5 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
GP SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59880
WP(C) NO. 10112 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
0.0375 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.9/6 in
Vaniyamkulam-I Village, Ottappalam Taluk, covered
under Exts.P6 and P7 documents. 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 petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application,
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P1
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
2025:KER:59880
WP(C) NO. 10112 OF 2025
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 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],
2025:KER:59880
WP(C) NO. 10112 OF 2025
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.P1 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,
who in turn has relied on the recommendation of the
Local Level Monitoring Committee. The authorised
officer has not rendered any independent finding
regarding the nature and character of the land as on the
2025:KER:59880
WP(C) NO. 10112 OF 2025
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:
(i) Ext.P1 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.
2025:KER:59880
WP(C) NO. 10112 OF 2025
(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
rmm/11/8/2025
2025:KER:59880
WP(C) NO. 10112 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10112/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2022
ISSUED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, OTTAPALAM
REJECTING THE PETITIONERS' APPLICATION
UNDER FORM 5
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/09/1989
CONVERTING PART OF THE LAND IN SURVEY NO.
9/6 BELONGING TO PETITIONER'S FATHER
UNDER KERALA LAND UTILIZATION ORDER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH PLAN OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE IS PLAN OF PETITIONER'S
PROPERTY
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
DATA BANK OF VANIYAMKULAM VILLAGE SHOWING
THE PROPERTY BEARING SURVEY NO. 9/6 HAS
CONVERTED FOR HOUSE
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 169
OF 2010, SRO OTTAPALAM
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE WILL NO. 167 OF 2011,
SRO PAZHAYANNUR
