Kerala High Court
Jubeena T.H vs Deputy Collector (Lr) on 8 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:49956
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. 38949 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JUBEENA T.H.,
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O NISHAD, KAROTTAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
EDATHALA NORTH P.O, EDATHALA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683564
BY ADV SHRI.P.A.MUJEEB
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
RDO, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101
2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
(UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF
PADDY AND WETLAND ACT, 2008),
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683561
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
EDATHALA KRISHIBHAVAN,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683561
4 SECRETARY,
EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683561
5 ADDL. 5 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
1ST FLOOR, K B JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM 682 001 (IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
08.07.2025 IN I.A. NO. 1 OF 2025)
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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. 38949 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:49956
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
1.62 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 50/12-2-5 in
Aluva East Village, Aluva Taluk. 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. P3 order, the authorised officer 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 nature and character of the property as
2025:KER:49956
on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P3 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
Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read
2025:KER:49956
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. P3 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 third respondent, who in turn
has relied on the observations of the second
respondent/the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the
impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied
that the impugned order has been passed without any
2025:KER:49956
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. P3 order is quashed.
(ii). The first 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.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider the Form 5
application, in accordance with law and as
2025:KER:49956
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
mtk/08.07.25
2025:KER:49956
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38949/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM
SECRETARY, EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
NUMBERED A5 859/2022 DATED 07/02/2022
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), RDO DATED
05/08/2024
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SAID PROPERTY
