Kerala High Court
Venugopalan vs The District Collector on 9 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:50294
WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024
PETITIONER
VENUGOPALAN,
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, KULAMULLATHIL HOUSE,
PARVANAM, CHELIYA P.O. CHENGOTTUKAVU, KOYILANDY,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673306
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
VADAKARA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,OPP. GOVT. REST
HOUSE, PUTHIYAPPU,VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673101
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (DM),
CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
KOYILANDI TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673305
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHENGOTTUKAVU VILLAGE OFFICE,KOYILANDY, EDAKKULAM,
2025:KER:50294
WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024
2
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673306
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
CHENGOTTUKAVU KRISHI BHAVAN,KANAYANKODE,
CHENGOTTUKAVU,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673304
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:50294
WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
74.78 Ares of land in Chengottukavu Village, Koyilandy
Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. Out of
the above extent of land, 39.77 Ares of land
comprised in Survey No.74/8 has been classified as
Nanja (paddy land) in the data bank. To exclude the
property from the data bank, the petitioner has
submitted Ext.P2 application before the 2 nd respondent
on 25.01.2024, 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.P3
order, the 3rd respondent has perfunctorily rejected
Ext.P2 application, without directly inspecting the
property. He has relied on the report of the
Agricultural Officer/6th respondent and Ext.P4 report
2025:KER:50294
WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024
of the 7th respondent as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules. However, he has not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature and
character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Ext.P3
order is illegal and arbitrary.
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 garden 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 plethora of judicial precedents, this Court
has held that, it is 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
2025:KER:50294
WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024
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. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association
and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others
(2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division Bench of this Court has
held that, merely because a property is lying fallow and
water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise, due
to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be
treated as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act,
2008. A similar view has been taken by this Court in
Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Irinjalakuda, (2023 (6) KHC 83), holding that the prime
2025:KER:50294
WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024
consideration to retain a property in data bank is to
ascertain whether paddy cultivation is possible in the
land.
6. Ext.P3 order establishes that the authorised
officer has not directly inspected the property. Instead,
he had called for Ext.P4 report from the 7 th respondent
as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Ext.P4
report shows that the plot was observed partially under
fallow land towards west and north side with mixed
vegetation/plantation/trees towards the south-east side
in the date of 2008. The same land use pattern was
observed in the data of 2010 and 2011. The data of
2016 and 2024 shows the plot under mixed
vegetation/plantation/trees with crops towards west side.
7. Nonetheless, in Ext.P3 order the 3 rd respondent
has not rendered any independent finding regarding the
nature, character or lie of the petitioner's property as on
the crucial date i.e., 12.08.2008 or whether the removal
2025:KER:50294
WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024
of the petitioners' property from the data bank would
adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality.
Instead by relying on the report of the Agricultural
officer and Ext.P4 KSREC report, he has passed the
impugned order. But, Ext.P4 report does not show that
the property is suitable for paddy cultivation as on
12.08.2008. Thus, I find that Ext.P3 order has been
passed without any application of mind and the decision
making process is vitiated. Hence, I am satisfied that
Ext.P3 order 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 in the aforesaid decisions and the
materials available on record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii). The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
2025:KER:50294
WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 (Form 5) application,
in accordance with law, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, 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
rmm/9/7/2025
2025:KER:50294
WP(C) NO. 45252 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 45252/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
06.09.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
25.01.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KSREC
DATED 13.06.2024
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
