Kerala High Court
P. Gopinathan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 30217 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:62990
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. 30217 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
P. GOPINATHAN NAIR,
AGED 86 YEARS
S/O. LATE A. PADMANABHA PILLAI, RADHA BHAVAN,PIRIYACODE,
OORUTTAMBALAM P.O., KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695507
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)
SRI.G.SUDHEER
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, CIVIL STATION ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NEDUMANGADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARANALLOOR,
VILLAGE OFFICE, MARANALLOOR, OORUTTAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695507
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, MARANALLOOR, KOOVALASSERY P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695512
WP(C) NO. 30217 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:62990
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 30217 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:62990
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 30217 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3 Ares 75
Sq. Mt. of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.170/5 and 170/4 in
Maranalloor Village, Kattakada Taluk covered under Ext.P2
land tax receipt. The property is a converted land 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 Ext.P5 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the
Rules. However, by Ext.P9 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either conducting a
personal inspection of the land or calling for the satellite
pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Aggrieved
by Ext.P9 order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P10 appeal before
WP(C) NO. 30217 OF 2024
2025:KER:62990
the 2nd respondent. But, by Ext.P14 order the 2nd respondent
has also rejected Ext.P10 appeal. The authorised officer has not
directly conducted the inspection of the property or called for
the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
Exts.P9 and P14 orders are 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
orders are illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be quashed.
2. In the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent, it is
contended that subsequent to the receipt of Ext.P5 application,
the Agricultural Officer and Village Officer had conducted a site
inspection of the property and submitted their report. They
found that the property is included in the data bank. If the
property is permitted to be converted, it would cause severe
flooding in the locality. It was in the said circumstances that
Ext.P9 order was passed. Even though there is no provision for
appeal, based on the directions of this Court, Ext.P10 appeal
was considered by the 2nd respondent, who has passed Ext.P14
order, that too based on the satellite images received from the
Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre
WP(C) NO. 30217 OF 2024
2025:KER:62990
('KSREC', in short). The satellite pictures and reports of the
Village Officer and Agricultural Officer prove that the property
cannot be excluded from the data bank. There is no illegality in
Exts.P9 and P14 orders. Hence, the writ petition may be
dismissed.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
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
WP(C) NO. 30217 OF 2024
2025:KER:62990
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. A reading of Ext.P9 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 relied on the reports of the
Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer. He 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
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. Even though
there is no provision for an appeal against Ext.P9 order, the
petitioner filed Ext.P10 appeal, which was rejected by the 2nd
respondent by Ext.P14 order, based on the directions of this
Court in Ext.P13 judgment.
7. On a consideration of the facts and the materials on
record, especially that the authorised officer has not directly
WP(C) NO. 30217 OF 2024
2025:KER:62990
inspected the property or referred to the satellite pictures as
envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, I hold that the
impugned order was passed in contravention of the statutory
mandate and the law laid down by this Court. Thus, Exts.P9 and
P14 are vitiated due to errors of law and non-application of
mind, and are liable to be quashed. Consequently, the
authorised officer is to be directed to reconsider Ext.P5
application as per the procedure prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
(i) Exts.P9 and P14 orders are 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
directly inspect the property or refer to Annexure R2(a)
report of the KSREC.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/20.08.25
WP(C) NO. 30217 OF 2024
2025:KER:62990
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30217/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE EX-SERVICEMEN IDENTITY CARD OF
PETITIONER ISSUED BY ZILLA ZAINIK BOARD DATED
30.6.1992
Exhibit P1(a) COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFFICATE ISSED BY
DR VIKARAMAN OF GOVT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL
, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P1(b) COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS ISSUED BY
DR.THANKARAJ
Exhibit P1(c) COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS ISSUED BY
DR.KRISHNA KUMAR
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 1.4.2024
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 COPY OF A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND OF
PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 A CERTIFICATE DATED 19.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT TO THE EFFECT THAT PETITIONER
GOT NO OTHER PROPERTY OTHER THAN THE PROPERTY
IN QUESTION
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
16.12.2019
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT WITH
NO. MNR 18/19 DATED 20.9.2020
Exhibit P7 COPY OF LETTER NO. G-9642/2019 DATED
18.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE PERFORMA REPORT DATED 27.4.2020
FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
NUMBERED AS G2-9642/19/K.DIS DATED 27.08.2020
Exhibit P10 COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 16.2.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G2-2239/22/(A)/K.DIS.
DATED 8.4.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P12 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
13.9.2023
Exhibit P13 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP (C) NO 37902/23 DT
1.3.2024
Exhibit P14 COPY OF THE ORDER NO DCTVM /537/2022-B-16 DT
1.8.2024 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
WP(C) NO. 30217 OF 2024
2025:KER:62990
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a) True copy of the KSREC report
Annexure R2(b) True copy of report No KBMNR 12/2024-25 from
Agricultural officer dated 20/06/2024
