Kerala High Court
Eduthan Tile Works Represented By Its ... vs The District Collector on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:60916
WP(C) NO. 11986 OF 2025
1
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. 11986 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
EDUTHAN TILE WORKS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER E. K. SEBASTAIN @ E. K. BABU,
AGED 73 YEARS
MANALI, PALIYEKKARA, CHITTISSERY P.O, THRISSUR.
S/O. E. P. KURIAPPAN, EDUTHAN HOUSE THALORE P.O,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680306
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINI CIVIL
STATION,CHEMMANDA ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN
- 680125
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, CHEMMANDA ROAD,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680125
2025:KER:60916
WP(C) NO. 11986 OF 2025
2
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, NENMANIKKARA P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680301
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
NENMANIKKARA KRISHIBHAVAN,NENMANIKKARA, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680301
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKASBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SMT.JESSY S.SALIM, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60916
WP(C) NO. 11986 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 11986 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2
Hectares, 36 Ares and 53 sq.m. of land comprised in
Survey Nos.448/1T4, 449/T5, 451/1T5, 461, 462/T5 in
Nenmanikkara Village in Mukundapuram Taluk, covered
under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. 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 Ext.P2 application in Form 5, under Rule
2025:KER:60916
WP(C) NO. 11986 OF 2025
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3 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 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
2025:KER:60916
WP(C) NO. 11986 OF 2025
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 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.P3 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory
requirements. There is no indication in the order that the
2025:KER:60916
WP(C) NO. 11986 OF 2025
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 relied on the recommendation of the
Local Level Monitoring Committee. He acted without
rendering 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 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
2025:KER:60916
WP(C) NO. 11986 OF 2025
prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form 5, 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 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
dkr
2025:KER:60916
WP(C) NO. 11986 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11986/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 26-10-
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
08.01.2024 ALONG WITH TYPED LEGIBLE COPY
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22-11-2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
