Kerala High Court
Teena Thomas vs The District Collector on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 6791 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:55216
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. 6791 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
TEENA THOMAS,
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O. CHANDY, KADAVINAL THARAYIL H. NO.1/244,
VADAKKUMKARA, VELLANGALLUR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN -
680662
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
THRISSUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR,
CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
THRISSUR TALUK OFFICE, TOWN HALL, W PALACE ROAD,
CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
OORAGAM VILLAGE OFFICE, THRISSUR - IRINJALAKUDA ROAD,
WP(C) NO. 6791 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:55216
CHERPU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680561
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
CHERPU KRISHIBHAVAN, MINI CIVIL STATION, ANTHIKAD,
CHERPU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680561
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K., SC-SRI.VISHNU S.
CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 6791 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:55216
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 6791 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 16.39
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.261/8-1 of Oorakam
Village, Thrissur Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax
receipt. 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 Ext.P2 application in Form 5,
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3 order,
the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures
WP(C) NO. 6791 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:55216
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 524], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue
Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy
WP(C) NO. 6791 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:55216
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. It is solely based on the report of the Agricultural
Officer, who in turn has relied on the recommendation of
the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), that the
impugned order has been passed. The authorised officer has
not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature
and character 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
WP(C) NO. 6791 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:55216
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.P3 order 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 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
WP(C) NO. 6791 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:55216
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
SCB.25.07.25.
WP(C) NO. 6791 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:55216
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6791/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
15.09.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
29.09.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
