Kerala High Court
Mariyambi K.V.V vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:56451
WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025
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. 14257 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MARIYAMBI K.V.V.,
AGED 41 YEARS
WIFE OF N. SAJID, BAITHUL MAJIDA, VELLUR, VELLUR
P.O, PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
SHRI.V.ROHITH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES BUILDING, THAVAKKARA,
KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TALIPARAMBA P.O KANNUR,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
VELLUR VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE BUILDING, P.O
VELLUR, PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307
2025:KER:56451
WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025
2
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, PAYYANNUR, P.O PAYYANUR, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670307
SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 30.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56451
WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.14257 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 11.59
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.100/106 in Block
No.17 in Vellur Village, Payyannur Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 possession certificate. 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.P-2 application in Form 5, under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3 order, the
2025:KER:56451
WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025
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. In the statement filed by the 3 rd respondent it is,
inter alia, contended that the petitioner's property is a
wetland. There are 27 coconut trees, aged about 20
years, in the said property. If the reclamation is
permitted, it would affect the cultivation in the locality.
Obtaining of satellite pictures is not mandate as per the
Act. It is evident from the report of the Agricultural
Officer that the property is a paddy land. Therefore,
2025:KER:56451
WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025
there is no error in Ext.P3 order.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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.
5. 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
2025:KER:56451
WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025
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.
6. 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
2025:KER:56451
WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025
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.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 3rd 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
2025:KER:56451
WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025
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:56451
WP(C) NO. 14257 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14257/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 14.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, VELLUR
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
02.05.2023 IN FORM NO. 5 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
PROPERTY
