Kerala High Court
Anu Treesa Riju vs The District Collector on 18 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 25266 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:53477
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25266 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
ANU TREESA RIJU,
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. RIJU JOSE, CHOVVARAKARAN HOUSE, CHALAKUDY NORTH,
MUKUNDAPURAM,THRISSUR, PIN - 680307
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN -
680003
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINI CIVIL
STATION, CHEMMANDA ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN -
680125
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
CHALAKUDY TALUK OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, MUNICIPAL TOWN HALL
COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680307
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
POTTA VILLAGE OFFICE, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY, CHALAKUDY,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680307
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
CHALAKUDY KRISHI BHAVAN, ROOM NO. 1, MUNICIPAL JUBILEE
MANDHIRAM, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680307
WP(C) NO. 25266 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:53477
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K., SC- SRI.VISHNU S.
CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25266 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:53477
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.25266 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5 Ares of
land, comprised in Survey No.108/3-18 in Potta Village,
Chalakkudy 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.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.P3 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected
Ext.P2 application, without directly inspecting the property.
Even though he called for Ext.P4 report from the Kerala State
Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC), wherein it
is specifically stated that the property is a fallow land with
mixed vegetation and plantation in the data of 2008, the 2 nd
WP(C) NO. 25266 OF 2024
2025:KER:53477
respondent has held that the property was converted
subsequent to 2008. Nonetheless, he has 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.
2. In the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent it is
stated that as per the report of the Agricultural Officer, the
property is lying one meter below the main land. There are ten
old coconut trees in the property which is seen planted only in
2013. Therefore, it is recommended not to exclude the
property from the data bank.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
4. 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 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.
WP(C) NO. 25266 OF 2024
2025:KER:53477
5. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this Court has held
that, it is 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)).
6. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association and
Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others (2020 (2) KHC
94), a Division Bench of this Court has held that, merely
because a property is lying fallow and water gets logged
during rainy season or otherwise, due to the low lying nature
of the property, it cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land
in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken
by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional
WP(C) NO. 25266 OF 2024
2025:KER:53477
Officer, Irinjalakuda, (2023 (6) KHC 83), holding that the
prime consideration to retain a property in data bank is to
ascertain whether paddy cultivation is possible in the land.
7. Ext.P3 order establishes that the authorised officer
has not directly inspected the property. He had called for a
report from the Agricultural Officer and Ext.P4 KSRSEC
report. But, in the impugned order he has observed that the
property was converted subsequent to 2008. A reading of
Ext.P4 report shows that the property was lying fallow with
mixed vegetation/plantation in the data of 2008. The said
pattern has continued in the data of 2010, 2011, 2017 and
2022. Therefore, there is no material on record to show that
the property was converted subsequent to 2008. If the 2 nd
respondent had any doubt regarding the nature and character
of the property, he ought to have directly inspected the
property and formed an independent opinion. Instead, by
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 and the authorised officer be
WP(C) NO. 25266 OF 2024
2025:KER:53477
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 Ext.P2 application, in accordance with
law, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within three months from the date of production of a
copy of this judgment by either directly inspecting
the property or considering Ext.P4 KSRSEC report.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/18.07.25
WP(C) NO. 25266 OF 2024
2025:KER:53477
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25266/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.04.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 09.05.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED
27.04.2024
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
