Kerala High Court
Thyngoli Madathil Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:61445
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. 31087 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
THYNGOLI MADATHIL PADMANABHAN,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O V.CHATHU NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT ‘ANKUR
NIVAS', CHALA EAST P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670621
BY ADVS.
SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
SHRI.PRAVEEN K.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
HIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN - 670101
4 TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE, KANNUR, PIN - 670001
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHEMBILODE, P.O.CHEMBILODE, KANNUR, PIN - 670613
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
CHEMBILODE KRISHI BHAVAN, CHEMBILODE, P.O.CHEMBILODE,
KANNUR, PIN - 670613
WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:61445
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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. 31087 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:61445
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 31087 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.2267
hectares of land comprised in Survey Re-No.56/115 of
Chembilode Village, Kannur Taluk, covered under Ext.P2
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.P6 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for
WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:61445
the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules. Even though the petitioner challenged Ext.P6 order
by filing an appeal before the 2nd respondent, the same
was also rejected by Ext.P8 order on the ground that
there is no provision to file an appeal. 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.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of
judgments of this Court -- including the decisions in
WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:61445
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.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 personally 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
WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:61445
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:
(i) Ext.P6 and P8 orders are quashed.
(ii) The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 application, 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
WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:61445
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
SCB.14.08.25.
WP(C) NO. 31087 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:61445
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31087/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGD DEED OF PARTITION
NO.2023 OF 2007, S.R.O., KADACHIRA, DATED
28.06.2007.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 09-
05-2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25-08-
2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION DATED
09-05-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-02-2024
IN W.P.(C) NO.7997 OF 2024 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-03-2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 08-04-2024
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-04-2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY.
