Kerala High Court
Kunjalan Kutty vs District Collector on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 17357 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:52532
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 17357 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KUNJALAN KUTTY,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O PAREEKUTTY, KOLATHIL KOLLERITHODI,
P.O.PUTHKODE., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673633
BY ADVS. SHRI.RANJITH C.
SHRI.BINJO ANDREWS
SMT.SHINY GEORGE MEKKATTUKULAM
SHRI.KIRAN JOHNY
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE PERINTHALMANA.
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
3 VILLAGE OFFICER ,
CHERUKAV VILLAGE OFFICE , MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673634
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
CHERUKAV KRISHIBHAVAN, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673634
5 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
BY SMT.PREETHA K K, SR.GP
SRI.VISHNU S CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17357 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:52532
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.43
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.25/15-3 in Cherukav
Village, Kondotty Taluk, 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 'paddy land'
and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property
from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4
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.P5 order,
the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P4
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
2025:KER:52532
finding regarding the nature and character of the
property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P5 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, his property
is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously
classified in the data bank as paddy land. 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.
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
2025:KER:52532
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. ExtP5 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 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 Agricultural 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
2025:KER:52532
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.P5 order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P4 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.P4
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
2025:KER:52532
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
NAB
2025:KER:52532
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17357/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL10070307352/2022 DATED 27/06/2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 A. TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P3 A. TRUE COPY OF DATA BANK DATED
23/03/2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A. TRUE COPY OF FORM.5 APPLICATION DATED
17/11/2022
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27/09/2023
