Kerala High Court
Geethakumari S vs Deputy Collector (La) on 4 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:39151
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. 7174 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
GEETHAKUMARI S.,
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. RAJEEV V.K., JAYA NIVAS, RAMAPURAM BAZAR
P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686576
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RENOY VINCENT
SHRI.AQUIN KURUVILLA TOM
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686576
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686576
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:39151
WP(C) NO. 7174 OF 2025 2
C.S. DIAS, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.7174 of 2025
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order
and direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P4
application (Form 5) submitted 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
5.60 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No. 264/5 of
Ramapuram Village, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam
District, covered by Ext. P1 land tax receipt. The
petitioner's property is a garden land. However, the
respondents have erroneously classified the same as
paddy land and included it in the data bank. To
exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner
2025:KER:39151
has submitted Ext.P4 application. But, the 1st
respondent, by the impugned Ext.P5 order, has
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P4 application, by solely
relying on the report of the 3rd respondent. He has not
inspected the property directly or called for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
Ext.P5 is illegal and arbitrary.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's specific case is that, her
property is a garden land. The respondents have
erroneously classified the same as paddy land and
included it in the data bank. Even though she submitted
Ext.P4 application to exclude the property from the data
bank, the 1st respondent without inspecting the property
directly or calling for satellite images has rejected the
same by the impugned Ext.P5 order, by solely relying on
the report of the Agricultural Officer.
2025:KER:39151
5. 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)).
6. Ext.P5 order would substantiate that the 1st
respondent has not directly inspected the property or
called for satellite images as envisaged under the Rules.
He has also not rendered any independent finding
regarding the nature and character of the petitioner's
2025:KER:39151
property as on the crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008, or
whether the removal of the petitioner's property from
the data bank would adversely affect the paddy
cultivation. Therefore, I am convinced that, there has
been total non-application of the mind in passing Ext.P5
order and the same is liable to be quashed. Hence, I
direct 1st respondent 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.P5 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to 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
2025:KER:39151
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. However, if 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
SCB.04.06.25.
2025:KER:39151
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7174/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17.05.2021
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY PREPARED BY A
LICENSED SURVEYOR ON 10.04.2024
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY IS PRODUCED
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.5 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 20.05.2024
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 25.10.2025
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN R. MURALEEDHARAN
NAIR VS. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND ORS. REPORTED IN
2023 (4) KLT 270
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN KRISHNANKUTTY MENON
& ANR. V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE &
ORS. REPORTED
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN APARNA SASI MENON
V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA REPORTED IN 2023 (6) KHC 83
