Kerala High Court
Shylaja vs The Sub Collector (Rdo), Ottapalam on 4 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:39080
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 44466 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SHYLAJA,
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O. RAVEENDRAN, KALLIYATHODI HOUSE,
SANKARAMANGALAM P.O, PATTAMBI TALUK,
PALAKKAD DT., PIN - 679303
BY ADV SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR (RDO), OTTAPALAM,
COURT ROAD, OTTAPPALAM,
PALAKKAD DT., PIN - 679101
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR,(L.R) R.D.O,
U/S 2 (XVA) OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND
AND WET LAND ACT, ( FOR PATTAMBI TALUK)
CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD,, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, PATTAMBI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
PATTAMBI, P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 679 303.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PATTAMBI VILLAGE OFFICE,P.O. PATTAMBI,
PALAKKAD DT, PIN - 679303
5 DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN,
NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE
HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN -
695033
WP(C) NO. 44466 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:39080
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 44466 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:39080
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P1 order
and direct the second respondent to re-consider Form
5 application submitted by the petitioner under Rule
4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of
3.19 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 81/7-4 of
Block No. 1 of Pattambi Village, Pattambi Taluk,
Palakkad District, covered by Ext. P2 title deed and
Ext. P3 basic tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a
garden land. However, the respondents have
erroneously classified the petitioner's property as
'Nilam' and included it in the data bank. In the said
background, the petitioner had submitted a Form 5
application to exclude the property from the data bank.
But, by the impugned Ext. P1 order, the second
2025:KER:39080
respondent has rejected the application by solely
relying on the report of the Convener of the third
respondent (Agricultural Officer). The second
respondent has not directly inspected the property or
called for satellite images as envisaged under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. Ext. P1 order is illegal and arbitrary.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. The second respondent has filed a statement,
inter alia, contending that the petitioner's property is
classified as 'Nilam' in the revenue records and the data
bank based on the report of the Agricultural Officer,
Pattambi. The said officer has reported that the
petitioner's property was not converted prior to 2008,
and it cannot be excluded from the data bank.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The petitioner's specific case is that, her
property is a garden land and has been erroneously
2025:KER:39080
classified in the data bank as 'Nilam'. Even though the
petitioner had filed a Form 5 application, the same has
been rejected by the second respondent without
inspecting the property directly or calling for the
satellite images.
6. 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
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)).
2025:KER:39080
7. Ext.P1 order substantiates that the second
respondent has not directly inspected the property or
called for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f)
of the Rules. Instead, he has rejected the application by
solely relying on the report of the convenor of the third
respondent. The second respondent has not rendered
any independent finding regarding the nature and
character of the petitioner's property as on the crucial
date, i.e., 12.08.2008, the date of the commencement of
the Act, or whether the removal of the petitioner's
property from the data bank would adversely affect the
paddy cultivation. Therefore, I hold that, there has been
total non-application of the mind in passing Ext.P1 order.
Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P1 order is liable to be
quashed and the second respondent/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
2025:KER:39080
available on record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P1 order is quashed.
(ii). The second respondent/authorised officer
is directed to reconsider Form 5 application
submitted by the petitioner, 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 Form 5
application submitted by the petitioner, 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. However,
if he directly inspects the property, he shall dispose
2025:KER:39080
of Form 5 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/04.06.25
2025:KER:39080
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44466/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/5/2023
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING
THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF TITLE DEED OF PETITIONER'S
PROPERTY BEARING REG:NO. 2717/2010 S.R.O
PATTAMBI DATED 8/9/2010
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE
PETITIONER'S LAND DATED 16/5/2024
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C NO.
5969/2024 DATED 15/2/2024 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
