Kerala High Court
Parvathy vs The District Collector on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54881
WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
PARVATHY,
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O. SUDHAKARAN, RESIDING AT VINAYAKA, VINOBHA
NAGAR, CHILAVANNOOR, KADAVANTHARA P.O., ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
GIRIJA V M, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. SUDHAKARAN P V,
RESIDING AT VINAYAKA, VINOBHA NAGAR,
CHILAVANNOOR, KADAVANTHARA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682020
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.AMJATHA D.A.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682030
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, K B JACOB
ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, PARK AVENUE, NEAR SUBASH
PARK, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
2025:KER:54881
WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024
2
KURIKKADU VILLAGE OFFICE, ERUVELI - THALAKODU
ROAD, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682312
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
CHOTTANIKKARA KRISHI BHAVAN, CHOTTANIKKARA
MULANTHURUTHY ROAD, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN
- 682312
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
7 THE SECRETARY,
COCHIN SHIPYARD STAFF CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE
CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD. NO. E 346. COCHIN
SHIPYARD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682015
8 CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY,
CHOTTANIKKARA MULANTHURUTHY ROAD, CHOTTANIKKARA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682312
GP.SMT.DEEPA V., SC-SRI.VISHNU S.
CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
SC, SRI. VINEETH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54881
WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
2.74 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 61/2-2-10
of Kareekkad Village, Kanayannur Taluk, covered
under Ext.P2 title deed. The property is a converted
land and is unsuitable for paddy cultivation.
Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously
classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it
in the data bank maintained under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008,
and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules',
for brevity). To exclude the property from the data
bank, the petitioner had submitted a Form 5
application under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However,
by Ext.P10 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling
2025:KER:54881
WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024
for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f)
of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any
independent finding regarding the nature and
character of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008 - the
date the Act came into force. The impugned order,
therefore, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law and
liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's principal contention is that the
applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the
Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected
the same without proper consideration or application of
mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court - including the decisions in Muraleedharan
Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC
2025:KER:54881
WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024
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
[2021 (1) KLT 433] - that the authorised officer is
obliged to assess the nature, lie and character of the
land and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on
12.08.2008, which are the decisive criteria to determine
whether the property is to be excluded from the data
bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P3 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the
statutory requirements. There is no indication in the
order that the authorised officer has personally
inspected the property or called for the satellite
pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
Instead, the authorised officer by solely relying on
Ext.P9 recommendations of the Local Level Monitoring
Committee (LLMC) and without rendering any
independent finding regarding the nature and character
2025:KER:54881
WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024
of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no
finding whether the exclusion of the property would
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In
light of the above findings, I hold that the impugned
order was passed in contravention of the statutory
mandate and the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the
impugned order is vitiated due to errors of law and non-
application of mind, and is liable to be quashed.
Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to
reconsider the Form 5 application as per the procedure
prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P10order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form 5 application, in
accordance with the law, by either conducting a
personal inspection of the property or calling for the
satellite pictures as provided under Rule 4(4f) of the
2025:KER:54881
WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024
Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the
application shall be disposed of within three months
from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other
hand, if the authorised officer opts to inspect the
property personally, the application shall be disposed of
within two months from the date of production of a copy
of this judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/25/7/2025
2025:KER:54881
WP(C) NO. 17086 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17086/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.
1313/2012 DATED 14.05.2012
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.
1548/2003 DATED 31.03.2003
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 7TH
RESPONDENT DATED 12.12.2002
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
PANCHAYATH DATED 25.03.2004
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE FEE
REMITTED BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED
06.04.2004
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.02.2016
ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 7TH
RESPONDENT DATED 10.03.2004
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
MINUTES OF THE LLMC DATED 19.01.2021
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING
THE PETITIONER'S FORM 5 APPLICATION
Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
