Kerala High Court
Jinsmon N vs The District Collector on 8 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 19028 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:49906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19028 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JINSMON N,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN, PANAMTHURAVA HOUSE,VETTUKAD, MANJALUR
POST, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678502
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THENKURISSI-II VILLAGE, THENKURISSI POST,
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, THENKURUSSI GRAMA
PANCHAYAT,THENKURISSI POST, ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
5 THE DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISED, COMMITTEE
(KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND WETLAND
ACT,2008),PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENOR,
THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
WP(C) NO. 19028 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:49906
6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
(KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND WETLAND ACT,2008)
THENKURISSI PANCHAYAT,REPRESENTED BY THE
CONVENOR,THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI
BHAVAN,THENKURISSI PANCHAYAT,ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
7 THENKURUSSI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
THENKURISSI POST, ALATHUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REP.BY THE SECRETARY,
PIN - 678501
8 THE SECRETARY,
THENKURUSSI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,THENKURISSI POST,
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
9 WILSON,
S/O KUNJAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 55,VETTUKAD, MANJALUR
POST,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678502
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN
SHRI.A.R.GANGADAS
SMT.DEEPA V, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19028 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:49906
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 08th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5
cents of land comprised in Re-Survey No.274/10 in
Thenkurissi-II Village, Alathur Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 document and Ext.P2 possession certificate. 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 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.P7 order, the 2 nd respondent has
perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 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
2025:KER:49906
nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008.
Subsequent to the Ext.P7 order, the petitioner had also
filed a Form 1 application, which was rejected by Ext.P8
order. On wrong advise, the petitioner also submitted
Ext.P9 Form 5 application. Hence, Ext. P7 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 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
2025:KER:49906
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.P7 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
2025:KER:49906
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.P7 order is quashed.
(ii). Ext.P9 application is dismissed.
(iii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 application, which led to
the passing of Ext.P7 order, 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:49906
(iv) 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.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:49906
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19028/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DEED NO.39/2019 ON THE FILE
OF SRO, KUZHALMANNAM DATED 10-01-2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 04-02-2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED NIL
MADE BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 11-02-
2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THE
VILLAGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED ON
01-03-2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PROPERTY
COVERED IN EXHIBITS P1 AND P2.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-10-2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11-
11-2020 SENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT .
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
UNDER FORM 5 DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER.
