Kerala High Court
Nagesh vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 10274 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:62989
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. 10274 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
NAGESH,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.NEELAMBARAN,SAYOOJYA, MURINJAKAL P.O, KOODAL,
KONNI TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689693
BY ADVS.
SHRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
SRI.MANU SRINATH
SHRI.LIJO JOHN THAMPY
SMT.NIVEDITA MUCHILOTE
SHRI.RIYAS M.B.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KONNI TALUK, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691523
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689693
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KALANJOOR KRISHI BHAVAN, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689694
5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KALANJOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -
689694
WP(C) NO. 10274 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:62989
GP.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. 10274 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:62989
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 10274 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 17.70
Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.156/15 of Koodal
Village, covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt. The
property is a converted land and is 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 Ext.P5 application in Form 5,
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P7 order,
the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
WP(C) NO. 10274 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:62989
inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures
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
WP(C) NO. 10274 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:62989
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 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.P7 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
WP(C) NO. 10274 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:62989
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 circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P7 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
WP(C) NO. 10274 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:62989
personally, the application shall be 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
SCB.20.08.25.
WP(C) NO. 10274 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:62989
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10274/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 500/2003 DATED
16.04.2003 OF ENADHIMANGALAM S.R.O IN
RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF LAND TAX NO.
KL03061006591/2023 DATED 03.10.2023 IN
RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD
2023- 2024
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.
80846736 DATED 04.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER IN RESPECT OF
THE PROPERTY
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATA BANK PREPARED BY THE LLMC
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION (FORM 5)
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER NUMBERED AS
15/2023/288719 DATED 16.10.2023
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.
KL03061006859/2023 DATED 16.10.2023 SHOWING
THE REMITTANCE OF APPLICATION FEE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF EXT. P5 APPLICATION
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING THE
EXT.P5 APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 10.09.2024
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT
NO.A-172/2015/KSREC/007195/24 DATED
26.11.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING & ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE
Exhibit P9 THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE
PROPERTY
