Kerala High Court
Kamalam vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:62936
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. 40341 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KAMALAM,
AGED 71 YEARS
W/O. BALAN, THAIVALAPPIL HOSE,
SOCIETY ROAD, ANCHERY,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680006
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ
SMT.K.VINAYA
SHRI.JOBY JOSEPH (THRISSUR)
SMT.ADONIYA GIGI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
AYYANTHOLE, CIVIL STATION,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE THRISSUR,
CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680022
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
OLLUR VILLAGE,OLLUR P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680651
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN OLLUR, OLLUR P.O,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680651
6 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
WP(C) NO. 40341 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:62936
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V
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. 40341 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:62936
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
10.14 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 68/13 in
Ollur Village, Thrissur Taluk covered under Ext. P4
land tax receipt. The property is a converted plot 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.P12 application in Form 5 under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P13 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 the Rules.
2025:KER:62936
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,
Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The
2025:KER:62936
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.P13 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
Agricultural 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
finding whether the exclusion of the property would
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light
2025:KER:62936
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.P13 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P12 application in accordance
with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or, 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
2025:KER:62936
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:62936
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40341/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING
THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
DOCUMENT NO 2985/2003 DATED 8.7.2003 OF
SRO OLLURKARA
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
DOCUMENT NO 2984/2003 DATED 8.7.2003 OF
SRO OLLURKARA
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
6.4.2024
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED
9.01.2004
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR TO REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR DATED 19.9.2003
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THRISSUR CORPORATION DATED 9.1.2004
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF PROPERTY TAX
DATED 15.9.2004 ISSUED BY THRISSUR
CORPORATION
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
23.9.2004
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
14.1.2020
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING CERTIFICATE
DATED 4.11.2024
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE FROM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 9.11.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.9.2024
