Kerala High Court
Prajila C.K vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 20218 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:52526
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. 20218 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PRAJILA C.K,
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O.THULASIDAS, MANOJAM, CHERIYA KOLOTH,
NADUVATTOM, BEYPORE P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673015
BY ADVS. SRI.T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR
SMT.T.O.DEEPA
SHRI.JAYKAR.K.S.
SHRI.C.SIVADAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOTTOOLI VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTOOLI P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
BY SMT.JESSY S SALIM, GP
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. 20218 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:52526
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 12
Ares and 15 sq.m of land comprised in Survey No.35/33 in
Re-Survey Block No.1 in Kottooli Village, Kozhikode
Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 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.P3 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
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P3 application, without
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He
2025:KER:52526
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.
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
2025:KER:52526
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
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
2025:KER:52526
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.
(ii). The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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.P3
application, in accordance with law and as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three
2025:KER:52526
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
NAB
2025:KER:52526
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20218/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P-1 A TRUE COPY OF DEED OF PARTITION
NO.3816/1 OF CHEVAYOOR SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE DATED 08/09/2006
EXHIBIT P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL11012403761/2023 DATED 06/06/2023
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT-VILLAGE
OFFICER
EXHIBIT P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5-
APPLICATION DATED 14/06/2023
EXHIBIT P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/12/2023
IN FILE NO.6221/2023, ON THE FILE OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT-REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
EXHIBIT P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/06/2023
IN FILE NO.1862/2023, ON THE FILE OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT-REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OF K.
NIRMALA
EXHIBIT P-6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2023
IN FILE NO.3808/2023, ON THE FILE OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT-REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OF K.
PRAJESH
EXHIBIT P-7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/12/2023
IN FILE NO.6220/2023, ON THE FILE OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT-REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OF K
T LIJIYA
