Kerala High Court
Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:48733
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. 12906 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 SANTHOSH,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.ANTO, ALUKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KOZHUKULLY, KUZHUKULLY P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680751
2 SIMI,
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O.SANTHOSH, ALUKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KOZHUKULLY, KUZHUKULLY P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680751
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ
SHRI.JOBY JOSEPH (THRISSUR)
SMT.K.VINAYA
SMT.ADONIYA GIGI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
AYYANTHOLE, CIVIL STATION,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR,
CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680022
WP(C) NO. 12906 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:48733
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOZHUKULLY VILLAGE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680751
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, NADATHARA,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680751
6 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R R),
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 12906 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:48733
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the owners in possession of
1.82 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.24/32-3 in
Kozhukully Village, Thrissur Taluk, covered under Ext.
P3 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 petitioners had
submitted Ext. P4 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. P5 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected Ext. P4 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 regarding
the nature and character of the property as on
2025:KER:48733
12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P5 order is illegal and arbitrary,
and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' specific case is that, their
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 petitioners 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
Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read
2025:KER:48733
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. P5 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
and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the
2025:KER:48733
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. P5 order is quashed.
(ii). The second respondent/authorised officer
is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 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 petitioners.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider Ext.P4
application, in accordance with law and as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three
months from the date of the receipt of the satellite
2025:KER:48733
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:48733
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12906/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING
THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
DOCUMENT NO.396/I/2023 DATED 15.2.2023 OF
SRO THRISSUR
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
23.5.2024 ISSUED BY LAND REVENUE
DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONERS IN FORM NO.5 DATED
29.1.2024 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
DEPUTY COLLECTOR [RR] THRISSUR DATED
30.8.2024 [ FILE NO. 268/2024 ]
