Kerala High Court
Taniya Jose vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 20175 OF 2023 1
2025:KER:62124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 20175 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
* TANIYA JOSE,
AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. SAJEEV MATHEW, ROSE VILLA,
KAIPPANCHERRY ROAD, IRUMBANAM P.O, PIN-682309,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
*[THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS "TANIA"
AS PER ORDER DATED 15/12/2023 IN I.A-1/2023 IN WP(C)
20175/2023]
BY ADVS.
SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
SMT.K.K.NESNA
SMT.T.S.SREEKUTTY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686001
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686001
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
ATHIRAMPUZHA, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686560
WP(C) NO. 20175 OF 2023 2
2025:KER:62124
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,ATHIRAMPUZHA,
ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686560
6 THE ATHIRAMPUZHA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ATHIRAMPUZHA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686562
BY ADVS.
SHRI.VARUGHESE M EASO, SC, ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA
PANCHAYAT
SHRI.RAJEEV V.K., SC, ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, gp
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
18.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 20175 OF 2023 3
2025:KER:62124
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 13.63
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.458/15-3 in Block
No.28 in Athirampuzha Village, Kottayam District. The
property is a converted land. However, 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 a Form 5 application, under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules before the 3rd respondent. However, by
Ext.P1 order, the 3rd respondent/authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application. Even though he has
not directly inspected the property, he had called for
Ext.P2 satellite pictures from the Kerala State Remote
2025:KER:62124
Sensing and Environmental Centre (KSREC).
Notwithstanding the specific observations in the said
report, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
Form 5 application. The authorised officer has not
rendered any independent finding regarding the nature
and character of the property as on 12.08.2008, whether
the exclusion of the property would adversely affect the
paddy cultivation in the locality. Ext.P1 order is illegal and
arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
2. In the statement filed by the 3 rd respondent
it is inter alia, contended that, the Agricultural Officer had
reported that the petitioner's property is not a converted
land. The land is only a barren and marshy. In fact there
is a clerical mistake in the remarks column of the KSREC
report. So, a hearing was conducted to convince the
petitioner about the mistake. After the hearing, Ext.P1
order was passed. There is no illegality in Ext.P1 order.
3. Heard; the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2025:KER:62124
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Ext.P1 order reveals that the authorised
officer has not directly inspected the property. Instead, he
2025:KER:62124
had called for Ext.P2 KSREC report. In Ext.P2 KSREC
report, it is specifically observed that, the applied property
is under crops and a road/pathway crosses the plot
through north in east to west direction in the data of 2008
and 2010. The said land pattern has continued in the data
of 2011, 2016 and 2022. There is no observation that
the property is a paddy land and is suitable for paddy
cultivation. Notwithstanding the specific observations
made in Ext.P2 KSREC report, the authorised officer has
rejected the Form 5 application on the ground that the
property cannot be excluded from the data bank.
This finding is passed without any application of mind. 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
2025:KER:62124
law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P1 order is quashed.
(ii) The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form 5 application, in accordance with the
law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 90
days from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment. It would be upto the authorised officer to either
directly inspect the property or rely on Ext.P2 KSREC
report.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:62124
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20175/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 20.12.2022
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT OFF THE
SURVEY PLOT 458 / 15 IN ATHIRAMPUZHA
VILLAGE , KOTTAYAM TALUK , DATED
26.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R3(A) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B1-
2294/2023 DATED 17.10.2023 OF RDO,KOTTAYAM
