Kerala High Court
Savitha Abdhu vs The District Collector on 30 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 4338 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:56435
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. 4338 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SAVITHA ABDHU,
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O. ABDHU, PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, ARTHAT PO,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680521
BY ADVS. SHRI.MOHEMED FAVAS
SHRI.P.S.KARTHIK
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL
LINES RD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680003
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL
LINES RD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680003
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
ARTHAT KRISHIBHAVAN, KUNNAMKULAM MUNCIPALITY,
ARTHAT, THRISSUR, PIN - 680523
BY 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:
WP(C) NO. 4338 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:56435
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10.3
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.35/3-1 in Arthat
Village, Kunnamkulam 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 authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures as
2025:KER:56435
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
2025:KER:56435
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 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
impugned order was passed in contravention of the
2025:KER:56435
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.P3 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 authorised officer opts to inspect the
2025:KER:56435
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:56435
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4338/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
16.07.2024 ISSUED BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
21.07.2023 BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RDO DATED
04.09.2024
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
20/1/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP (C)
NO.8886/2024 DATED 07/03/2024 OF THE
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURE
OFFICER DATED 12.07.2024
