Kerala High Court
Thomas Varghese Uluvathu vs The District Collector on 21 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54042
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27957 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
THOMAS VARGHESE ULUVATHU,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. K. VARGHESE, ULUVATHU HOUSE,
MATTOM SOUTH, THATTARAMBALAM P.O.,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690103
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
1ST FLOOR, COLLECTORATE,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CHENGANNUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MAVELIKKARA - KOZHENCHERY ROAD,CHENGANNUR,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689121
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
MAVELIKKARA TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690101
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
THATTARAMPALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690103
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
CHETTIKULANGARA KRISHI BHAVAN,
CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690106
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
WP(C) NO.27957 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54042
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- MT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.27957 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:54042
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
17.70 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 273/3,
273/2 and 273/21 in Kannamangalam Village,
Mavelikkara 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 second respondent has
perfunctorily rejected Ext. P2 application, without
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
2025:KER:54042
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. P3 order is illegal and
arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. In the statement filed by the fifth respondent, it
is stated that, only the property comprised in Survey
Nos. 273/2 and 273/3 was included in the data bank.
The property comprised Survey No. 273/21 was not
included in the data bank. In the site inspection that was
conducted by the fifth respondent, it was seen that the
property was low lying compared to the adjacent
properties and roads. There is also a water canal flowing
in the adjacent property. Therefore, it was recommended
not to exclude the property from the data bank. Hence,
the writ petition may be dismissed.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
2025:KER:54042
4. 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.
5. 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,
2025:KER:54042
Palakkad (2023 (2) KLT 386) and Joy K.K v. The
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
6. 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 relying
on the report of the Agricultural Officer and 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
2025:KER:54042
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 second 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,
2025:KER:54042
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
mtk/21.07.25
2025:KER:54042
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27957/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
10.05.2023
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
01.02.2024
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
