Kerala High Court
Abhilash U.K vs The District Collector on 29 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:56186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 20682 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 ABHILASH U.K
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O KUTTYKRISHNAN, ULLADAM KUZHIYIL HOUSE,
PANTHEERAMKAVU P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
2 SHILLY DAS.A
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O ABHILASH U.K ULLADAM KUZHIYIL HOUSE,
PANTHEERAMKAVU P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 019
BY ADV SHRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOZHIKODE, COLLECTORATE CIVIL STATION,
ERANHIPPALAM KOZHIKODE-673020
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM KOZHIKODE-673020
3 THE TAHSILDAR
KOZHIKODE TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
ERANHIPPALAM KOZHIKODE-673020
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
FEROKE VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE,
FEROKE KOZHIKODE-673631
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, FEROKE VILLAGE.
KOZHIKODE-673631
WP(C) NO.20682 OF 2023 2
2025:KER:56186
6 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE C
BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 033
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.JESSY S. SALIM,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.20682 OF 2023 3
2025:KER:56186
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2025
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession
of 3.06 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 417/3
in Feroke Village, Kozhikode Taluk, covered under Ext.
P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted plot
and 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 petitioners had
submitted a Form 5 application under Rule 4(4d) of the
Rules. However, by Ext.P6 order, the authorised officer
has summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or relying
on satellite imagery, as specifically mandated under
2025:KER:56186
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 legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioners is that
the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
2025:KER:56186
Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the competent
authority 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 merits
exclusion from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P6 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 directly inspected the property or
referred to the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has
merely acted upon the report of the Village Officer. Even
though a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing
and Environment Centre ('KSREC report,' for short) was
called, it was not considered. The authorised office
has not rendered any independent finding regarding the
2025:KER:56186
condition of the land as on the relevant date. There is
also no consideration of whether the exclusion of the
property would prejudicially affect the surrounding
paddy fields or the larger agricultural ecosystem.
6. In light of the above findings, I hold that Ext.P6
order has been issued in contravention of the statutory
mandate and judicial precedents. The order is vitiated
due to non-application of mind and is liable to be
quashed and the authorised officer be directed to
reconsider the Form 5 application as per the procedure
prescribed under the Act and Rules.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P6 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form 5 application, in
accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within 90 days from the date of the production
2025:KER:56186
of a copy of this judgment. It would be up to the
authorised officer either directly inspect the property or
refer to Ext. P8 KSREC report.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/29.07.25
2025:KER:56186
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20682/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT WITH
NO.KL11010903087/2022 FOR THE YEAR 2022-
2023 DATED 19.04.2022
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICER, FEROKE DATED
16.12.2022
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.2548/2018 DATED
27.09.2018
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
VILLAGE OFFICER REPORT DATED NIL OBTAINED
UNDER RTI
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF KSREC DATED
03.06.2022
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 11.08.2022
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED
03.06.2022
