Kerala High Court
Vinod Kurian vs The District Collector on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 33297 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:62968
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. 33297 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
VINOD KURIAN,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. P.K.KURIAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL, VELLOOR, PAMPADI,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686501
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - KUMILY ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686002
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR/THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOTTAYAM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MIN CIVIL
STATION, UNION CLUB ROAD, PUTHENANGADY, KOTTAYAM, PIN
- 686001
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
KOTTAYAM TALUK OFFICE, MIN CIVIL STATION, UNION CLUB
ROAD, PUTHENANGADY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PAMPADI VILLAGE OFFICE, PAMPADI P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686502
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
PAMPADI KRISHI BHAVAN, PAMPADI, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686502
WP(C) NO. 33297 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:62968
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K., SC-SRI.VISHNU S.
CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
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. 33297 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:62968
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 33297 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.65
Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 138/2-2 and 138/1-
2 of Pambadi Village, Kottayam Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 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.P2 application in
Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures
WP(C) NO. 33297 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:62968
as 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 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
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
WP(C) NO. 33297 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:62968
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.P3 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
findings, I hold that the impugned order was passed in
contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid
WP(C) NO. 33297 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:62968
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.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd 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
personally, the application shall be disposed of within
WP(C) NO. 33297 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:62968
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.20.08.25.
WP(C) NO. 33297 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:62968
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33297/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
23.09.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
05.12.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
