Kerala High Court
Muralidharan vs The District Collector on 27 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:65756
WP(C) NO. 13240 OF 2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 5TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13240 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MURALIDHARAN ,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O BALAN, ORERITHAZHA HOUSE ORERITHAZHA, PULIYANCHERI,
MUCHUKUNNU P.O, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN
- 673307
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANISH PAUL
SRI.K.V.SURESH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE COLLECTORATE,CIVIL STATION
P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
VADAKARA, REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE, PWD REST HOUSE, OLD
BUS STAND, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673101
3 H
KOYILANDI KRISHI BHAVAN, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.,
PIN - 673305
4
VIYYUR VILLAGE OFFICE, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT-, PIN - 673307
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:65756
WP(C) NO. 13240 OF 2024 2
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 13240 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4 Ares
46 square meters of land comprised in Survey No.65/10 of
Viyyur Village, Koyilandi Taluk, 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.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 inspection
of the land or calling for the satellite pictures as mandated
2025:KER:65756
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. In the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent,
it is contended that, in the site inspection conducted by the
Agricultural Officer, it was found that the property was not
converted before the commencement of the Act. The land
contains water channels and is reclaimed after 2008 by
depositing earth. The property was not erroneously
included in the data bank. Therefore, there is no illegality
in Ext.P6 order.
3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit
refuting the allegations in the statement of the 2 nd
respondent.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2025:KER:65756
5. 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.
6. 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
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.
7. A reading of Ext.P6 order reveals that the
2025:KER:65756
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 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.
2025:KER:65756
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P6 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
copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SCB.27.08.25.
2025:KER:65756
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13240/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
12.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.5 APPLICATION
DATED 17.01.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION CUM
PROFORMA REPORT DATED 07.07.2023 SUBMITTED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT-AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10.07.2023
SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT-
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2023
BEARING NO.4363/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
