Kerala High Court
C.C Varghese vs The District Collector on 14 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:61309
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18622 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
C.C VARGHESE,
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O GEEVARGHESE CHACKO,CHUNGATHIL HOUSE,
MEELPADAM,MANNAR VEEYAPURAM,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689627
BY ADVS.
SMT.RENI JAMES
SMT.T.A.MARY RINJU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE RD, CHITTOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
THIRUVALLA TALUK OFFICE,T
HIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
ONNAM KURISH , NIRANAM,
THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689626
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.18622 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:61309
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
24.20 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 51/9 in
Block No.1 of Niranam Village, Thiruvalla 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 '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 an application in Form 5
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P4
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected
the application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery,
as specifically mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
2025:KER:61309
Even though the petitioner had filed a review petition,
the same was also dismissed by Ext. P6 order. Ext. P4
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:61309
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.P4 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
of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no
2025:KER:61309
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. Exts.P4 and P6 orders are quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form 5 application in
accordance with law. The authorised officer shall either
conduct a personal inspection of the property or,
alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in accordance
with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
2025:KER:61309
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/14.08.25
2025:KER:61309
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18622/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.652 OF
1977.DATED 21.04.1977
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATE
04.05.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A6-1415/22/K.
DIS DATED 13.07.2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
16.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ExhibitP 6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
7/2023/A3/KDIS/A6 DATED 23/10/2023
