Kerala High Court
Manu B Nath vs The District Collector on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:60944
WP(C) NO. 46633 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. 46633 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MANU B NATH,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. K V BHUVANENDRANATH, REMA MAHAL, MAKKAPUZHA,
CHETHAKKAL, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689676
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
SECOND FLOOR, COLLECTORATE ROAD, CHITTOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THIRUVALLA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALIKARA
ROAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689101
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.R),
SECOND FLOOR, COLLECTORATE ROAD, CHITTOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
RANNI TALUK OFFICE, DINDIGUL-THENI-KOTTARAKKARA
HIGHWAY, SH8, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689672
2025:KER:60944
WP(C) NO. 46633 OF 2024
2
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHETHACKAL VILLAGE OFFICE, EDAMON, CHETHACKAL,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689676
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
RANNI - PAZHAVANGADI KRISHI BHAVAN,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689673
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
SRI.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.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:60944
WP(C) NO. 46633 OF 2024
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 46633 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 49.92
Ares of land comprised in Chethackal Village in Ranni
Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. Out of the
above extent of land, 11.73 Ares of land comprised in
Survey No.39/3A-2, is erroneously classified as 'nilam'
and included 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 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P3 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
2025:KER:60944
WP(C) NO. 46633 OF 2024
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
mind.
2025:KER:60944
WP(C) NO. 46633 OF 2024
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 authorised officer has personally inspected the
property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated
2025:KER:60944
WP(C) NO. 46633 OF 2024
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
writ petition in the following manner:
2025:KER:60944
WP(C) NO. 46633 OF 2024
(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:60944
WP(C) NO. 46633 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46633/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
17.04.2023
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
04.07.2024
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
