Kerala High Court
B.P Sekharan vs The District Collector on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52569
WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024
1
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. 21774 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 B.P SEKHARAN,
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. MADHAVA RAVIVARMA, KALYANI MADHAVAM VEEDU,
CHEVARAMBALAM, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN -
673017
2 M.K SREEJITH,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. KUMARAN. M, 28/811A, KRISHNA, CHEVAYUR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673017
BY ADV SMT. ARYA ASHOKAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION KOZHIKODE, WAYANAD ROAD,
ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
KOZHIKODE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION
KOZHIKODE, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
KOZHIKODE TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION KOZHIKODE,
WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN
- 673020
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PERUVAYAL VILLAGE OFFICE, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673008
2025:KER:52569
WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024
2
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
PERUVAYAL KRISHI BHAVAN, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673008
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52569
WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession
of 5 Ares and 97 Sq.Metres of land comprised in Survey
No.54/17 in Peruvayal Village, Kozhikode 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 'wetland' and included
it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the
data bank, the petitioners had submitted a Form 5
application under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation
of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in
short). But, by the impugned ExtP3 order, the 2 nd
respondent has perfunctorily rejected the Form 5
application, without inspecting the property directly or
calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule
2025:KER:52569
WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024
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.P3 order is
illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' specific case is that their
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 and wet land.
Even though the petitioners 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:52569
WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024
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.P3 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 reports of the respondents 4 and 5, 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
2025:KER:52569
WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024
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.P3 order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form 5 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 petitioners.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider the Form 5
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:52569
WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024
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
rmm/16/7/2025
2025:KER:52569
WP(C) NO. 21774 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21774/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.
KL11014106897/2023 DATED 09.06.2023
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
PUBLISHED DATABANK ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING FILE NO.
4479/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONERS DATED 07-10-2023
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY
