Kerala High Court
Ramesh Babu P vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:62837
WP(C) NO. 21208 OF 2025
1
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. 21208 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RAMESH BABU P
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O MADHAVANUNNI NAIR, ARCHANA PALLIKKAL,
KARANTHUR, KUNNAMANGALAM, P.O, KARANTHUR,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673571
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAGHUL SUDHEESH
SMT.J.LAKSHMI
SMT.AMBILY T. VENU
SMT.UMADEVI M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE KOZHIKODE WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION,
ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673020
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL
STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN -
673020
4 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM,
2025:KER:62837
WP(C) NO. 21208 OF 2025
2
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673020
5 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
KOZHIKODE TALUK OFFICE, WAYANAD RD, CIVIL STATION,
ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673020
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KUTTIKKATTOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, KERALA,
PIN - 673008
7 THE SECRETARY
KUNNAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT KUNNAMANGALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673571
8 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KUNNAMANGALAM KRISHI BHAVAN, KUNNAMANGALAM,
KOZHIKODE KERALA, PIN - 673570
GP SMT. JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:62837
WP(C) NO. 21208 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5
Ares and 66.58 Sq.Metres of land comprised in Re-
Survey No.4/2B in Kuttikkattoor 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 '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.P3 application in Form
5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P6
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
2025:KER:62837
WP(C) NO. 21208 OF 2025
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],
2025:KER:62837
WP(C) NO. 21208 OF 2025
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 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.P6 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 Village 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
2025:KER:62837
WP(C) NO. 21208 OF 2025
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 circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P6 order is quashed.
(ii) The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P3 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
2025:KER:62837
WP(C) NO. 21208 OF 2025
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 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
rmm/20/8/2025
2025:KER:62837
WP(C) NO. 21208 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21208/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.
4500/2013 DATED 25.10.2013
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
09.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE KUTTIKKATTOOR
VILLAGE OFFICE
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
05.04.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
29.11.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.12.2024
GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2025
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT OFFICIALLY
REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
31.01.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
