Kerala High Court
Santhosh S vs State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 15127 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:54969
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. 15127 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SANTHOSH S,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O SIVADASAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, KAZHUTHURUTTY
P.O., EDAPPALAYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691309
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
SMT.JOLIMA GEORGE
SMT.C.B.SABEELA
SMT.APARNA G.
SMT.SHYLAKUMARI C.C.
SHRI.AIVIN ALEX PHILIP
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN - 686002
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
O/O REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR, PIN -
691305
4 THE TAHSILDHAR,
PUNALUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, PUNALUR, PIN - 691305
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PUNALUR VILLAGE OFFICE,PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691333
WP(C) NO. 15127 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54969
6 THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER & CONVENOR,
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,KRISHI BHAVAN,
PUNALUR, KALAYANAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691331
7 THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE (KSREC),
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR,
PIN - 695033
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
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. 15127 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:54969
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.05
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.384/1B in Block
No.1 in Punalur Village, Punalur Taluk, covered under
Ext.P2 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.P4
application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P5 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling
for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any
2025:KER:54969
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 Senior 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
2025:KER:54969
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.P5 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
has merely acted upon the report of the Agricultural
Officer without rendering 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 the above findings, I
2025:KER:54969
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.P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 3rd 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
2025:KER:54969
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
NAB
2025:KER:54969
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15127/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED VIDE NO.
2070/1/21 DATED 16.09.2021
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE
NO.KL02061201749/2023 DATED 15.03.2023
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND
NATURE OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
17.08.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE FILE
NO. 597/2024 DATED 16.03.2024 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE PROCEEDINGS
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.22/2023
DATED 07.02.2023 ISSUED BY REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER ,PUNALUR
ANNEXURE R3(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND
