Kerala High Court
Aswathi vs The District Collector on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:62844
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. 41026 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 ASWATHI,
AGED 39 YEARS
W/O. VINOD KUMAR, MANAMMAL SOPANAM,
KAKKADAMPURAM, A R NAGAR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676305
2 JAYABHARATHI,
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O. SURESH BABU, MANAMMAL SOPANAM,
KAKKADAMPURAM, A R NAGAR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676305
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE ROAD, UP HILL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
TIRUR-THRIKANDIYOOR ROAD, TIRUR,
MALAPURAM, PIN - 676101
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)
COLLECTRATE ROAD, UP HILL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
WP(C) NO.41026 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:62844
4 THE TAHSILDAR
TIRURANGADI TALUK OFFICE,
TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676306
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
A R NAGAR VILLAGE OFFICE,
ABDUL RAHIMAN NAGAR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676305
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
A R NAGAR, KRISHI BHAVAN,
ABDUL RAHIMAN NAGAR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676305
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- MT.JESSY S. SALIM,
STANDING COUNSEL- 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.41026 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:62844
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession of
16.47 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 414/7-14
and 414/7-15 in A.R. Nagar Village, Thirurangadi Taluk
covered under Ext. P1 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 petitioners
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 relying on satellite imagery, as specifically
2025:KER:62844
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 legally
unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioners 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],
2025:KER:62844
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 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.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 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
2025:KER:62844
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.P3 order is quashed.
ii. The third respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 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 petitioners.
2025:KER:62844
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 petitioners.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/20.08.25
2025:KER:62844
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41026/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
24.02.2022
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
09.11.2023
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
