Kerala High Court
Dr. Samuel K Nainan vs The District Collector on 23 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C ) No. 1457 of 2025 1
2025:KER:54675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1457 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 DR. SAMUEL K NAINAN,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. K.S NAINAN, KOLABHAGATHU VEETTIL,
NANNUVAKADU, PATHANAMTHITTA P O,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
2 DR. MAYA MATHAYI,
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. DR. SAMUEL K NAINAN,
KOLABHAGATHU VEETTIL, NANNUVAKADU,
PATHANAMTHITTA P O,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
SECOND FLOOR, COLLECTORATE ROAD,
CHITTOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
ADOOR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MG ROAD, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691523
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
SECOND FLOOR, COLLECTORATE ROAD,
CHITTOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
WP(C ) No. 1457 of 2025 2
2025:KER:54675
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK OFFICE,
GROUND FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION,
KOZHENCHERRY, THIRUVALLA-KUMBAZHA HIGHWAY,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE OFFICE,
COLLECTORATE ROAD, CHITTOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
PATHANAMTHITTA KRISHI BHAVAN,
KALLARAKADAVU ROAD, CHUTTIPPARA,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K.,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C ) No. 1457 of 2025 3
2025:KER:54675
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2025
The petitioners are the owners in possession of
20.84 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 262/4-36-
1, 262/4-36-2-1, 262/4-7-1, 262/4-7-3, 262/4-8, 262/4-8-
1 and 316/1-2-1 in Pathanamthitta Village,
Kozhenchery Taluk, covered under Ext. P1 land tax
receipt. Out of the above extent, 12.13 Ares of land
have been erroneously classified by the respondents
as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank. To
exclude the property from the data bank, the
petitioners 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 third respondent
has perfunctorily rejected Ext. P2 application, without
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
2025:KER:54675
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. 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
2025:KER:54675
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)).
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 report of the Agricultural Officer, the
2025:KER:54675
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 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 third 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 petitioners.
2025:KER:54675
(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,
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/23.07.25
2025:KER:54675
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1457/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
06.02.2024
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
25.04.2024
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2024
ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
