Kerala High Court
Sajana vs The State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 13291 OF 2023
1
2025:KER:61112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13291 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
1 SAJANA,
AGED 31 YEARS
W/O SAIDALAVI, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS
KULATHILKUTTEKATT HOUSE, VELIPRAM AMSOM DESOM, P O
RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673633
2 KABIR,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS KARINKALLAIDESOM,
P O FEROKE COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673632
3 ALAKUMURUGHAN,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O MUTHU, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS KARINKALLAIDESOM, P
O FEROKE COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673632
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL
SMT. SUHARABI KANNETH
SMT.SMRITHI HARRIS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR , CIVIL LINES,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
WP(C) NO. 13291 OF 2023
2
2025:KER:61112
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER /SUB
COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
RAMANATTUKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, RAMANATTUKARA P O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673633
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 13291 OF 2023
3
2025:KER:61112
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 13291 OF 2023
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the owners in possession of
different extents of lands comprised in different survey
numbers in Velipuram/Ramanatukara Village covered under
Exts.P1 to P3 title deeds. Nevertheless, the respondents have
erroneously classified the properties as 'wetland' and included
them 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 properties from the data bank, the petitioners had
submitted Exts.P6, P8 and P10 applications in Form 5, under
Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Exts.P13 to P15 orders,
the authorised officer has rejected the Form 5 applications
without conducting a personal inspection of the properties.
Even though the Agricultural Officer had called for Ext.P5
report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing & Environment
Centre ('KSREC', in short) and the same was received on
WP(C) NO. 13291 OF 2023
2025:KER:61112
25.08.2022, the authorised officer has not considered the
report. Furthermore, Exts.P13 to P15 orders are devoid of any
independent finding regarding the nature and character of the
lands as it existed on 12.08.2008 -- the date the Act came into
force. The impugned orders, therefore, are arbitrary and
unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' 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
WP(C) NO. 13291 OF 2023
2025:KER:61112
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 Exts.P13 to P15 orders reveal that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory
requirements. There is no indication in the orders that the
authorised officer has personally inspected the properties or
referred to the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f)
of the Rules. Even though the Agricultural Officer had called
for Ext.P5 KSREC report, the authorised officer has not
considered the same. There is also no finding whether the
exclusion of the properties would prejudicially affect the
surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above findings, I hold
that the impugned orders were passed in contravention of the
statutory mandate and the law laid down by this Court. Thus,
the impugned orders are vitiated due to errors of law and non-
application of mind, and are liable to be quashed.
Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to
reconsider the Form 5 applications as per the procedure
WP(C) NO. 13291 OF 2023
2025:KER:61112
prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
(i) Exts.P13 to P15 orders are quashed.
(ii) The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Exts.P6, P8 and P10 Form 5 applications, 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 conduct a personal inspection of the
property or consider Ext.P5 KSREC report.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/12.08.25
WP(C) NO. 13291 OF 2023
2025:KER:61112
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13291/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
ExhibitP1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO 1009
OF 21, DATED 12.4.21 OF THE FEROKE S R O.
ExhibitP2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO 1007
OF 21, DATED 12.4.21 OF THE FEROKE S R O.
ExhibitP3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO 1008
OF 21, DATED 12.4.21 OF THE FEROKE S R O.
ExhibitP4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, RAMANATTUKARA, DATED 2.6.15.
ExhibitP5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KERALA STATE
REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER DATED
25.8.22.
ExhibitP6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 31.8.21.
ExhibitP7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 31.8.21.
ExhibitP8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 2NDPETITIONER DATED 12.8.21.
ExhibitP9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 12.8.21.
ExhibitP10 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 3RDPETITIONER DATED 12.8.21.
ExhibitP11 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 12.8.21.
ExhibitP12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W P (C) 40343
OF 2022 DATED 13.12.22
ExhibitP13 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER IN THE
FIRST PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED
1/12/2022
ExhibitP14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER IN THE
SECOND PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED
7/1/2023.
ExhibitP15 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER IN THE
THIRD PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED 7/1/2023
