Kerala High Court
Radha Damodaran vs The District Collector on 15 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52180
WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RADHA DAMODARAN,
AGED 73 YEARS
W/O DAMODARAN, 33/1812 SRIRANJINI KOVILAKAM ROAD,
MANJERI P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676121
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DAJISH JOHN
SHRI.ANANDHU K.S
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
DISTRICT COLLECTORATE,DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE COLLECTORATE,CIVIL STATION P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,CIVIL
STATION JUMA MASJID, SH29, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673020
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2025:KER:52180
WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025
2
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER,RAMANATUKARA -
FAROOK COLLEGE RD,CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN - 673631
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
RAMANATTUKARA VILLAGE,CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN -
673631
SMT.JESSY S.SALIM, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 15.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52180
WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.6872 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10
Ares and 72.6 square metres of land comprised in
Survey Nos.341/394 and 341/395 in Ramanattukara
Village, Kozhikode, covered under Ext.P1 land tax
receipt. The property is a converted land. It is not
suitable for paddy cultivation. However, the
respondents have erroneously classified the property as
'wetland' and included it in the data bank. To exclude
the property from the data bank, the petitioner had
submitted Ext.P2 application in Form 5 under Rule
4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the
impugned Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer has
2025:KER:52180
WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P2 application, without
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He
has also not rendered any independent finding
regarding the nature and character of the property as
on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P4 order is illegal and
arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's specific case is that, her
property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously
classified in the data bank as wetland. Even though the
petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application, to
exclude the property from the data bank, the same has
been rejected by the authorised officer without any
application of mind.
2025:KER:52180
WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025
4. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this
Court has emphatically held that, it is the nature, lie,
character and fitness of the land, and whether the land
is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e.,
the date of coming into force of the Act, are the
relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue
Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data
bank (read the decisions of this Court 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 and others (2021
(1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext.P4 order establishes that the authorised
officer has not directly inspected the property or called
for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of
2025:KER:52180
WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025
the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the
property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of
the property from the data bank would adversely affect
the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by solely
relying on the report of the Village Officer, the
impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied
that the impugned order has been passed without any
application of mind, and the same is liable to be
quashed and the authorised officer be directed to
reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law,
after adverting to the principles of law laid down by this
Court in the aforesaid decisions and the materials
available on record.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the
following manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
2025:KER:52180
WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 application, in accordance
with law. It would be up to the authorised
officer to either directly inspect the property or
call for satellite images, as per the procedure
provided under Rule 4(4f), at the expense of the
petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite
images, he shall consider Ext.P2 application, in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within three months from
the date of the receipt of the satellite images. In
case he directly inspects the property, he shall
dispose of the application within two months
from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
dkr
2025:KER:52180
WP(C) NO. 6872 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6872/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
RAMANATTUKARA VILLAGE DATED 15.11.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 21.02.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2 ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED
08.12.2023 IN WPC 41025 OF 23
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2024
BEARING FILE NO. 1914 OF 2024 ISSUED BY
THE 2 ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
