Kerala High Court
Thomas M vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:60838
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. 45757 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
THOMAS M.,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O MATHEW C.K, KADALMAD,
THOMATTUCHAL DESAM,
KADALMAD PO, SULTHANBETHERY TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673581
BY ADVS.
SHRI. ANOOP KRISHNA
SRI.V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
(SUB - COLLECTOR MANTHAVADI) OFFICE OF THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANANDHAVADI PO,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 670645
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, SULTHAN BHATHERY,
SULTHAN BHATHERY PO, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673592
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE KUPPADI, KUPPADI PO,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673592
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON
13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.45757 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:60838
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.5
Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 590/14 in Block
No. 16 of Kuppadi Village, Sultan Bathery Taluk
covered under Ext. P2 land tax receipt. The property is
a converted plot and unsuitable for paddy cultivation.
Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously
classified the property as 'wetland' 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 authorised officer has summarily
rejected the application without either conducting a
personal inspection of the land or relying on satellite
2025:KER:60838
imagery, as specifically 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 legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that
the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
2025:KER:60838
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 competent
authority 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 merits
exclusion 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 directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer, that the impugned order has been
passed. The authorised officer has not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature and character
2025:KER:60838
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 aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P5 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P4 application in accordance
with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call
2025:KER:60838
for the satellite pictures, in accordance with 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 personally inspect the
property, the application shall be considered and
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
mtk/13.08.2025
2025:KER:60838
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 45757/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO
2367/2016 OF SRO SULTHAN BHATHERY DATED
15.07.2016
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VILLAGE
OFFICER DATED 03.05.2024
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 18.11.2021
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
CONVERSION DATED ON 21.01.2022
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTED THE FORM NO
5 APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON
10.03.2024
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, SULTHAN BHATHERI
DATED 16.06.2023
