Kerala High Court
Surumi P vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:48742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12909 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SURUMI P.,
AGED 30 YEARS
D/O SUDHEER , PARAPPURAVAN, PUNNAPPALA,
CHADANGAKULAM P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679328
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANSOOR ALI
SRI.BIJITH S.KHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM,
COLLECTORATE , UP HILL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
3 SUB- COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA,
SHORNUR-PERINTHALMANNA RD,
SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA, KERALA, PIN - 679322
4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PERINTHAMANNA, SHORNUR- PERINTHALMANNA ROAD,
SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
5 VILLAGE OFFICER, WANDOR,
NILAMBUR THALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679328
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
WANDOOR, NILAMBUR THALUK,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679328
WP(C) NO.12909 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:48742
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.12909 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:48742
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
3.54 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 377/2-8
in Wandoor Village, Nilambur Taluk, covered under
Ext. P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted
land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However,
the respondents have erroneously classified the
property as 'paddy land' and included it in the data
bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the
petitioner had submitted Ext. P3 application in Form 5
under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But,
by the impugned Ext. P4 order, the authorised officer
has perfunctorily rejected Ext. P3 application, without
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He
has also not rendered any independent finding
2025:KER:48742
regarding the nature and character of the property as
on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P4 order is illegal and
arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's specific case is that, her property
is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously
classified in the data bank as paddy land. Even though
the petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application, to
exclude the property from the data bank, the same has
been rejected by the authorised officer without any
application of mind.
4. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this
Court has emphatically held that, it is the nature, lie,
character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is
suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the
date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant
criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional
2025:KER:48742
Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read
the decisions of this Court 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 and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext. P4 order establishes that the authorised
officer has not directly inspected the property or called
for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the
property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of
the property from the data bank would adversely affect
the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by solely
relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the
impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied
that the impugned order has been passed without any
application of mind, and the same is liable to be quashed
2025:KER:48742
and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the
matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to
the principles of law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions and the materials available on
record.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the
following manner:
(i). Ext. P4 order is quashed.
(ii). The fourth respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext. P3 application, in
accordance with law. It would be up to the
authorised officer to either directly inspect the
property or call for satellite images, as per the
procedure provided under Rule 4(4f), at the
expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider Ext. P3
application, in accordance with law and as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three
2025:KER:48742
months from the date of the receipt of the satellite
images. In case he directly inspects the property,
he shall dispose of the application within two
months from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/03.07.25
2025:KER:48742
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12909/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
HAVING NO. KL 10051906600/2024 IN RE.
SURVEY NO. 377/2-8 OF WANDOOR VILLAGE IN
NILAMBUR TALUK ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 29.04.2024
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
BEARING NO. 1854/1/2022 DATED 19.3.2022
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT HAVING NO. 7/2022/90393
DATED 14.11.2022
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT HAVING NO 10/23/2023 DATED
24.04.2023
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT HAVING NUMBER B3-719/24 DATED
17.01.2024
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER HAVING NO.
631/2024 DATED 30.01.2024
