Kerala High Court
Pushpalatha.G vs Deputy Collector (Rr) on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:62890
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 15693 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PUSHPALATHA.G.,
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O.KUMARAN, 9/266, BAMA,KSHB COLONY,
MALAPARAMBA.P.O.,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673009
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.V.ANOOP
SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
SHRI.ABIN BENNY
SHRI.K C MOHAMED RASHID
SHRI.DENNISE JACOB SAVY
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION,
ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
RAMANATTUKARA VILLAGE,
COLLEGE ROAD,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673633
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, RAMANATTUKARA,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673633
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.15693 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:62890
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8
Ares and 1 sq. meter of land comprised in Survey No.
501/8 in Ramanattukara Village, Kozhikode Taluk. The
property is a converted plot and unsuitable for paddy
cultivation. Nevertheless, 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 an application
in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by
Ext.P2 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
2025:KER:62890
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:62890
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.P2 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
Village 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:62890
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. Ext.P2 order is 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,
2025:KER:62890
alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in accordance
with 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 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/20.08.25
2025:KER:62890
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15693/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4330/2007
OF FAROKE SRO, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT DATED
22.10.2007
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2023
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FORM 5
APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
