Kerala High Court
M P John vs The District Collector on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 15200 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:62978
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. 15200 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
M P JOHN,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O LATE M O POULOSE, MENACHERRY HOUSE, KARUMALLOOR PO,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683511
BY ADV SHRI.DAJISH JOHN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR(DM) ( THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ),
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,FORT KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KARUMALOOR, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683511
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KARUMALLOOR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683511
5 THE SECRETARY,
KARUMALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARUMALLOOR PO, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683511
GP.SMT.HESSY S. SALIM, SC-SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
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. 15200 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:62978
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 15200 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 29
Ares and 14 square meters of land comprised in Survey
No.288/5-4 of Karumalloor Village, Ernakulam District,
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.P5 application in Form 5, under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P8 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the application
without either conducting a personal inspection of the
WP(C) NO. 15200 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:62978
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
Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy
WP(C) NO. 15200 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:62978
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.P8 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 reports of the Agricultural Officer
and 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 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
WP(C) NO. 15200 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:62978
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.P8 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 two months from the date of production of a
WP(C) NO. 15200 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:62978
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. 15200 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:62978
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15200/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED
03.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE,
KARUMALOOR
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ELECTION IDENTITY
CARD DATED 31.08.2000 IN THE NAME OF
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF FRONT PAGE OF RATION
CARD DATED 24.12.2008 IN THE NAME OF
PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF OWNERSHIP
CERTIFICATE DATED 06.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
21.10.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED
12.07.2024 IN WPC 21149 OF 24
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED
23.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2025
BEARING FILE NO. 81 OF 2025 ISSUED BY THE
2 ND RESPONDENT
