Friday, 17, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Graceamma Philip vs The District Collector
2025 Latest Caselaw 1743 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1743 Ker
Judgement Date : 30 July, 2025

Kerala High Court

Graceamma Philip vs The District Collector on 30 July, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
                                                2025:KER:56527
WP(C) NO. 20244 OF 2024

                                1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

  WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1947

                    WP(C) NO. 20244 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

         GRACEAMMA PHILIP,
         AGED 67 YEARS
         W/O. THOMAS MATHEW, VAZHAYIL HOUSE,
         THRIKKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM, PIN
         - 686105


         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
         SMT.FARHANA K.H.




RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
         COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - KUMILY ROAD, KOTTAYAM,
         PIN - 686002

    2    THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         KOTTAYAM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
         MINI CIVIL STATION, UNION CLUB ROAD, PUTHENANGADY,
         KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001

    3    THE TAHSILDAR,
         CHANGANASSERY TALUK OFFICE, KACHERY ROAD, OPP.
         GOVERNMENT MODEL HSS, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM,
         PIN - 686101
                                                          2025:KER:56527
WP(C) NO. 20244 OF 2024

                                  2


     4     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
           THRIKKODITHANAM VILLAGE OFFICE, THRIKKODITHANAM,
           KUNNUPURAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686105

     5     THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
           THRIKKODITHANAM KRISHI BHAVAN, THRIKKODITHANAM,
           KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686105

     6     THE DIRECTOR,
           KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
           CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
           695033

           SMT.DEEPA V., GP


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   30.07.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                    2025:KER:56527
WP(C) NO. 20244 OF 2024

                                3


                           C.S.DIAS, J.
               ---------------------------------------
                  WP(C) No.20244 of 2024
              -----------------------------------------
             Dated this the 30th day of July, 2025
                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 9.47

Ares of land comprised in Survey No.364/3-4 in

Thrikkodithanam Village in Changanassery 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 2025:KER:56527 WP(C) NO. 20244 OF 2024

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 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 2025:KER:56527 WP(C) NO. 20244 OF 2024

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 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 2025:KER:56527 WP(C) NO. 20244 OF 2024

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, who in turn relied on the recommendation of the

Local Level Monitoring Committee 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 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.

2025:KER:56527 WP(C) NO. 20244 OF 2024

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, 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 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

dkr 2025:KER:56527 WP(C) NO. 20244 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20244/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.06.2022 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 02.02.2022 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter