Kerala High Court
Dinesh Mani K K vs The District Collector on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 8128 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:55229
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. 8128 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DINESH MANI K K,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. KUNJUMON KONIKKAPPARAMBIL, PIRAROOR, MATTOR,
KALADY, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT
KONIKKAPPARAMBIL (H), MATTOR VATTAPRAMBU,KALADY,
ALUVA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.P.S.JALALUDDEEN MOHMMED
SRI.SHELLY PAUL
SHRI.HYBIN JOSE P.P.
SMT.JEFFERCY J.THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L A), R D O,
ALUVA TALUK, GROUND FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION,CIVIL
STATION ROAD, PERIYAR, ALUVA, PIN - 683101
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KALADY,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574
GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K
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. 8128 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:55229
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 8128 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10.12
Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.342/12-1-2 , 342/6-2
and 346/5-2-2 of Mattoor Village, Aluva 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
WP(C) NO. 8128 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:55229
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. 8128 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:55229
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.
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. 8128 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:55229
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.P5 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. 8128 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:55229
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. 8128 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:55229
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8128/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DEED NO. 656/22
SREEMOOLANAGARAM SRO DATED 23.03.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED
08/01/2025 BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF DATA BANK DETAILS WITH RESPECT
TO PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KALADY
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF FORM 5 APPLICATION AS PER THE
KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET
LAND RULES, 2008 DATED 04/08/2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18/10/2024 BY
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) RDO, ALUVE TALUK
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE
OF THE PROPERTY
