Kerala High Court
Fathima vs Deputy Collector (La)Rdo on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 16525 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:54963
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. 16525 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
FATHIMA
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O.K.A.MOIDEEN RESIDING AT KARUPPAM VEETTIL HOUSE,
CHATHAMKULAM, MUDIKKODE, PATTIKKAD.P.O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680652
BY ADVS.
SHRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
SMT.K.S.SMITHA
SMT.B.R.SINDU
SMT.REMYA MURALI
SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
SMT.AFNA V.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)RDO
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN,VADAKKANCHERY, ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678686
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
ALATHUR TALUK, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678541
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VADAKKANCHERY - VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678686
WP(C) NO. 16525 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:54963
5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
(KSREC),
VIKAS BHAVAN, C BLOCK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
BY SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
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. 16525 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:54963
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 6.37
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.60/4 in
Vadakkancherry-I Village, covered under Ext.P1 partition
deed and 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.P3 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the
Rules. However, by Ext.P4 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
2025:KER:54963
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 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:54963
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.P4 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 hold that the
2025:KER:54963
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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P3 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
2025:KER:54963
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:54963
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16525/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO,
2526/2015 OF SRO, VADAKKANCHERRY EXECUTED
ON 15.10.2015
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST BASIC TAX
RECEIPT DATED 11.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER FOR THE PROPERTY HELD BY THE
PETITIONER EXTENDING TO 6.37 ARES IN
VADAKKANCHERRY-I VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY
THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 BEFORE THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD ON
05.10.2023
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2025
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING
EXHIBIT.P3 APPLICATION
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE EXTRACT OF THE PROCEDURE FOR
GETTING SATELLITE DATA INFORMATION AND
REPORT FROM KSREC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN
THE MATTER OF KRISHNANKUTTY MENON VS.
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE REPORTED IN
2025 (1) KHC 647
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
27.03.2025 MADE IN W.P.(C).NO.11982/2023
