Kerala High Court
Jinachandran vs The District Collector on 4 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:49157
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 42673 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
JINACHANDRAN
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O. KUNJIKELU, KEEZH MANA,
THEKKEDEVASATHIL PARAMBATH, THALAKULATHUR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673317
BY ADV SMT. ARYA ASHOKAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
KOZHOKODE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD,
ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673020
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
KOZHIKODE TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
THALAKULATHUR VILLAGE OFFICE,
PARAMBATH, THALAKULATHUR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673317
WP(C) NO. 42673 OF 2023 2
2025:KER:49157
5 THE AGRICULTURALOFFICER
THALAKULATHUR KRISHI BHAVAN,
EDAKKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673616
6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMOTTEE
THALAKULATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER/THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER,THALAKULATHUR KRISHI BHAVAN,
EDAKKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673616
7 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE CAMPUS,
PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K.,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT.JESSY S. SALIM.,
STNANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 42673 OF 2023 3
2025:KER:49157
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2
Ares and 834 sq. meters of land comprised in Survey
No. 43/73 in Thalakulathur Village, Kozhikode 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 'wetland' (Nanja)
and included it in the data bank. To exclude the
property from the data bank, the petitioner had
submitted a Form 5 application under Rule 4(4d) of
the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland
Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the impugned
Ext. P6 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily
rejected the Form 5 application, without inspecting
the property directly or calling for satellite images as
2025:KER:49157
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.
Hence, Ext. P6 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 his property
is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously
classified in the data bank as 'wetland' (Nanja). 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
2025:KER:49157
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
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. P6 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
2025:KER:49157
relying on the report of the Village 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 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. P6 order is quashed.
(ii). The second respondent/authorised officer
is directed to reconsider the Form 5 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.
2025:KER:49157
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider the Form 5
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
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.
(iv) The parties are directed to maintain status
quo in respect of the property as on 12.10.2020, till
a final decision is taken in the Form 5 application.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/04.07.25
2025:KER:49157
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42673/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL11014807629/2023 DATED 01.07.2023.
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
06.04.2010 FOR THE PERSON WITH
DISABILITIES ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH SERVICE.
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF STOP MEMO DATED 12.10.2020
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
PUBLISHED DATA BANK OF THALAKKULATHUR
GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 11-08-2011.
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 11.02.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C7-35/2021
DATED 12.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY BEFORE CUTTING TREES.
Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS AFTER
STARTING CONSTRUCTION.
