Kerala High Court
Annie Jacob vs Local Level Monitoring Committee, ... on 14 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:61680
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. 24272 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANNIE JACOB
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O JACOB.P.P PANDYAMYALIL HOUSE,
KANJIRAMATTAM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682315
BY ADV SMT.SOUMIYA C.D
RESPONDENTS:
1 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
AMBALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
AMBALLUR , REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER., PIN - 682315
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
AMBALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
AMBALLUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682315
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
AMBALLUR VILLAGE,
AMBALLUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682315
4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682001
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.24272 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:61680
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the co-owner in possession of
30.20 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.
536/10, 536/11 and 536/17 in Amballoor Village,
Kanayannur Taluk covered under Ext. P7 land tax
receipt. Out of the above extent of land, the
respondents have erroneously classified 12.70 Ares of
land 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.P6 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery,
2025:KER:61680
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],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
2025:KER:61680
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.P6 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
finding whether the exclusion of the property would
2025:KER:61680
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.P6 order is quashed.
ii. The fourth 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
for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
2025:KER:61680
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:61680
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24272/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE DATA BANK SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF
12.70 ARES IN RESURVEY NO. 536/17 VIDE
SI.NO. 1471
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 3.7.2018
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE
RESPONDENTS DATED 1.1.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
WITH DOCUMENTS DATED 20.6.2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
PROPERTY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.1.25
FILE NO. 4201/2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE AMBALLUR VILLAGE OFFICE DATED
12.8.2024
