Kerala High Court
Chandran vs District Collector on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:60922
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. 16784 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 CHANDRAN,
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O. PONNU, ERATTAKKULAM HOUSE, THEKKETHARA,
MELARCODE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678703
2 PADMAVATHY,
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O. CHANDRAN, ERATTAKKULAM HOUSE, THEKKETHARA,
MELARCODE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678703
BY ADV SRI.P.R.VENKATESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678001
3 TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678541
4 MELARCODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MELARCODE, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678703
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, MELARCODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678703
WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:60922
6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, MELARCODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678703
BY ADV SRI.BABY MATHEW
SMT.DEEPA V, GP
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. 16784 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:60922
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
The 2nd petitioner is the owner in possession of
0.1259 hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.73/1-1
in Block No.25 in Melarcode Village, Alathur Taluk,
covered under document No.655/2021 of the SRO, Alathur.
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
1st petitioner had submitted an application in Form 5, under
Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P2 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the application
without either conducting a personal inspection of the land
2025:KER:60922
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 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
2025:KER:60922
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.P2 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
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
2025:KER:60922
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.P2 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.
(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
2025:KER:60922
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
NAB
2025:KER:60922
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16784/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.3.2019
RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2023
OF THE RDO
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 11.12.2021
PASSED BY THE LOK ADALATH
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED
30.11.2021 FROM THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR TO
BIJU K.V
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 22.8.2022 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RDO
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
12.5.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE BEFORE THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 9.6.2023
RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.1.2024
FROM THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER EVIDENCING
FORWARDING OF REPORT BY THE KSREC DATED
26.11.2019
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10.1.2024
FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MELARCODE
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 15.10.2022
