Kerala High Court
Krishnan.P.P vs District Collector on 4 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 37023 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:49005
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. 37023 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
KRISHNAN.P.P,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.IMBICHI KUTTAN,PUTHUKKARAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O.
PULLIPARAMB, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673634
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RANJITH C.
SRI.V.GANGADHARAN
SHRI.KIRAN JOHNY
SHRI.BINJO ANDREWS
SMT.SHINY GEORGE MEKKATTUKULAM
SMT.SEBI S. RAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PERINTHALMANA, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 679322
3 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (DM),
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(DM), COLLECTORATE,CIVIL
STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHELEMBRA VILLAGE OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673634
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
CHELEMBRA KRISHIBHAVAN, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673634
WP(C) NO. 37023 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:49005
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SC- SRI.VISHNU S.
CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 37023 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:49005
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 37023 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.44 Ares
of land, comprised in Survey No.109/2 in Chelembra Village,
Kondotty 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.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
12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P5 order is illegal and arbitrary, and
WP(C) NO. 37023 OF 2024
2025:KER:49005
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
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 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
WP(C) NO. 37023 OF 2024
2025:KER:49005
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 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 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
WP(C) NO. 37023 OF 2024
2025:KER:49005
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 petitioner.
(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 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
rkc/04.07.25
WP(C) NO. 37023 OF 2024
2025:KER:49005
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37023/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL10070202782/2024 DATED 01/04/2024 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
Exhibit P3 A. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA
BANK DATED NIL
Exhibit P4 A. TRUE COPY OF FORM.5 APPLICATION DATED
30/04/2022
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 14/03/2023
