Chempon Dineshan vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 3435 Ker

Kerala High Court

Chempon Dineshan vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                      2025:KER:60904

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

   WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947

                       WP(C) NO. 4011 OF 2024


PETITIONER:

          CHEMPON DINESHAN
          AGED 55 YEARS
          S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT UDAYAM,
          SREERAM NAGAR, THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY,
          KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670103

          BY ADV SRI.R.SURENDRAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          SREPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2     DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          COLLECTORATE, KANNUR, PIN - 670001

    3     REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
          OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, GUNDERT ROAD,
          THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101


          SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SRI.RENJITH S

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 4011 OF 2024        2

                                               2025:KER:60904




          Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025

                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 82.73

Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 49/441, 49/443,

49/444, 49/445, 49/446 and 49/447 of Vayalalam desom

Village, Thalassery Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax

receipt. The property was naturally filled up before

04.07.1967. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.

P3 application in Form 9 under Section 27A read with

Rule 12(13) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land

and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 ('Act and Rules' in

short). The petitioner produced all the relevant

documents to substantiate his assertion. However, by

Ext. P4 order, the third respondent has rejected the

application. Even though the petitioner preferred Ext. P5

appeal before the second respondent, the same was also

dismissed by Ext. P7 order. Exts. P4 and P7 orders are

illegal and arbitrary. The respondents 3 and 2 have not

2025:KER:60904

considered Ext. P3 application in its proper perspective

or adverted to Exts. P8 to P11 documents that were

submitted by the petitioner to prove the property was

naturally filled up before 04.07.1967. Instead, the

respondents 3 and 2, by solely relying on the report of

the Village Officer and by directly inspecting the

property, have formed own opinion. The procedure

adopted by the respondents 3 and 2 is against Rule

12(13) of the Rules. Hence, Exts. P4 and P7 orders may

be quashed.

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the second

respondent, inter alia, it is contended that the Village

Officer had reported that the petitioner's property is not

classified as paddy land or wetland, or included in the

data bank. The petitioner purchased the properties as

per the sale deed Nos. 2411/2004, 627/2005, 317/2005

and 1820/2011 of the Sub Registrar Office, Thalassery.

The said documents do not prove that the property was

naturally filled up before 04.07.1967. Even though the

2025:KER:60904

parent documents were verified, it was found that the

property is not naturally filled up. The property was

classified as 'Nilam'. Therefore, the third respondent had

rightly rejected Ext. P3 application by Ext. P4 order,

which has been confirmed by the second respondent by

the impugned Ext. P7 order. As directed by this Court in

Contempt Case No. 76/2023, the site inspection was

conducted. Then it was found that an apartment has

been constructed in the adjacent property and not in the

property of the petitioner. Consequently, the Contempt

Case was closed. After that, the petitioner preferred the

appeal before the second respondent. There is no error

in Exts. P4 and P7 orders. Hence, the writ petition may

be dismissed.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Special Government Pleader.

4. It is the petitioner's specific case is that, the

property was naturally filled up before 04.07.1967. It

was on the basis of the said assertion that he preferred

2025:KER:60904

Ext. P3 application in Form 9.

5. In the above context it is necessary to refer to

Rule 12(13) of the Rules, which reads as follows:

" (13) The application regarding the change of nature of land, which was filled up or naturally filled up before the 4th day of July, 1967, shall be submitted in Form 9 and the following records shall be considered as evidence to show that such land was filled up or naturally filled up before the 4th day of July, 1967, that is :-

(i) copy of title deeds which asserts the fact that such land has been either naturally filled up or utilized for purposes other than agriculture before 4th July 1967 or;

(ii) legally valid agreements (including otti, kanam etc.) executed in stamp paper in which it is asserted/recorded that such land has been either naturally filled up or utilized for purposes other than agriculture before 4th July 1967.

(iii) receipt proving remittance of building tax with the Local Self Government Institution for a building in existence on such land prior to 4th of July 1967; or

(iv) licence or such documents, if any, issued by any Government Officer or Government Agency sufficient to prove that such land has been either naturally filled up or used for purposes other than agriculture prior to 4th of July 1967;

(v) based on the age, oldness of standing trees, houses, ancient Kaavu (holy groves), structures, etc. which are referred to in the application made for change of nature of unnotified land and the statement of witness in support of that fact."

2025:KER:60904

6. The above Rules provides that, to allow the Form

9 application, the applied property has to be naturally

filled up before 04.07.1967. To prove the said aspect, the

applicant is obliged to produce the title deed which

shows that the property was naturally filled up before

04.07.1967. On production of the said documents, the

authorised officer is obliged to call for the enquiry report

from the Village Officer as envisaged under Rule 12(14)

of the Rules. After verifying the documents and the

report of the Village Officer, if the authorised officer is

satisfied that the property was naturally filled up before

the cut-off date, then he is to allow the application.

7. A reading of Exts. P4 and P7 orders proves that

neither the respondents 3 nor 2 has verified the recitals

in Exts. P8 to P11 documents that were produced by the

petitioner to prove that the property was naturally filled

up. Instead, the respondents 3 and 2 have only relied on

the report of the Village Officer and inspected the

property directly. The inspection of the property is not

2025:KER:60904

envisaged under the Rules. The authorised

officer/appellate authority was legally obliged to refer to

the documents produced by the applicant and then

render an independent finding whether the said

documents prove that the property was filled up

naturally before 04.07.1967.

8. As there is no conspicuous absence of a finding

regarding the consideration of Exts. P8 to P11

documents, I am of the view that the appellate authority

is to reconsider the appeal after following the procedure

envisaged under Rule 12(13) of the Rules. Hence, I am

convinced and satisfied that Exts. P4 and P7 orders are

vitiated by errors of law and are liable to be quashed.

In the above circumstances, I allow the writ

petition in the following manner:

(i) Exts. P4 and P7 orders are quashed.

(ii) The second respondent is directed to reconsider Ext. P5 appeal, in accordance with law.

(iii) The second respondent shall advert to Exts.

P8 to P11 documents and assign reasons

2025:KER:60904

whether the documents are sufficient to prove that the property was naturally filled before 04.07.1967.

(iv) The above exercise shall be carried out within 90 days from the date of the copy of the judgment. The petitioner would be at liberty to produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/13.08.25

2025:KER:60904

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4011/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 15- 7-2022 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVANGAD VILLAGE EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 17-11-2022, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28-2- 2023 IN FORM 9 OF KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND RULES EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-3-2023 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 23-6-2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 22-7-2023 FILED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25-12-2023 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 1249/1941 REGISTERED AT OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF NORTH MALABAR EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT DATED 26-7-1956 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.1120 OF 1956 OF SRO THALASSERY EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 14-6-1957 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.858 OF 1957 OF SRO THALASSERY EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT DATED 15-6-1962 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.670/1962 OF SRO THALASSERY EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT DATED 18-7-1969 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.736 OF 1969 OF SRO THALASSERY EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT DATED 8-2-1980 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. 205 OF 1980 OF

2025:KER:60904

SRO THALASSERY EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT DATED 18-1-1997 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. 106 OF 1997 OF SRO THALASSERY EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT DATED 18-1-1997 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.107 OF 1997 OF SRO THALASSERY EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 20-

                   11-2004     REGISTERED    AS    DOCUMENT
                   NO.2411/2004 OF SRO THALASSERY
EXHIBIT P17        A TRUE COPY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 21-

2-2005 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.317/2005 OF SRO THALASSERY EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 30- 3-2005 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.

627/2005 OF SRO THALASSERY EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1820 OF 2011 OF SRO THALASSERY DATED 6-8-2011