Kerala High Court
Sujith Sukumaran vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:60913
WP(C) NO. 44478 OF 2024
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. 44478 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SUJITH SUKUMARAN,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. PREETHY, MADATHIL THENAYANCHERRY, NADATHARA
P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680751
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ
SHRI.JOBY JOSEPH (THRISSUR)
SMT.K.VINAYA
SMT.ADONIYA GIGI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
AYYANTHOLE, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE THRISSUR, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN -
680022
2025:KER:60913
WP(C) NO. 44478 OF 2024
2
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
NADATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680651
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN NADATHARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680751
6 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
SMT.JESSY J.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:60913
WP(C) NO. 44478 OF 2024
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 44478 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 1.98
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.218/17 in
Nadathara Village in Thrissur Taluk, covered under
Ext.P3 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.P4 application in Form 5, under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P5 order, the
2025:KER:60913
WP(C) NO. 44478 OF 2024
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
the same without proper consideration or application of
2025:KER:60913
WP(C) NO. 44478 OF 2024
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.P5 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
2025:KER:60913
WP(C) NO. 44478 OF 2024
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 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
2025:KER:60913
WP(C) NO. 44478 OF 2024
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P5 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:60913
WP(C) NO. 44478 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44478/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING
THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
DOCUMENT DATED 11.6.2012 OF SRO THRISSUR
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 21.6.2024
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
IN FORM NO.5 DATED 5.3.2024
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.9.2024
