Kerala High Court
Rajesh M.K vs The District Collector on 4 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:39352
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. 6867 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 RAJESH M.K.,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O NARAYANA MENON, RAMRAJ, NETHAJI ROAD
PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004
2 REMESH M.K.,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O NARAYANA MENON, RAMRAJ, NETHAJI ROAD,
PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DAJISH JOHN
SHRI.ANANDHU K.S
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,CIVIL
STATION JUMA MASJID, SH29, ERANHIPPALAM,KOZHIKODE,
KERALA, PIN - 673020
2025:KER:39352
WP(C) NO. 6867 OF 2025 2
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAMANATUKARA -
FAROOK COLLEGE RD,CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN - 673631
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
RAMANATTUKARA VILLAGE, CALICUT DISTRICT, PIN -
673631
SR GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:39352
WP(C) NO. 6867 OF 2025 3
C.S. DIAS, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.6867 of 2025
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order
and direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P2
application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules,
2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioners are the owners in possession
of 6.68 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey
No.341/1E3 of Ramanattukara Village, Kozhikode
District, covered by Ext.P1 basic tax receipt. The
petitioners' property is a dry land. However, the
respondents have erroneously classified the same as
'Nanja' and included it in the data bank. In order to
exclude the property from the data bank, the
2025:KER:39352
petitioners have submitted Ext.P2 application.
However, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, the 2 nd
respondent has perfunctorily rejected the application,
by solely relying on the report of the 4th respondent.
Ext.P4 is erroneous and arbitrary. Hence, the writ
petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned Government Pleader submits that,
as per the classification of the land in the Malabar
region, 'Nanja' land is wetland.
5. The petitioners' specific case is that, their
property is a dry land. However, the respondents have
erroneously classified the same as 'Nanja' and included
it in the data bank. Even though they have filed Ext.P2
application to exclude the property from the data bank,
the same has been rejected by the impugned Ext.P4
order.
2025:KER:39352
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)).
7. Ext.P4 order substantiates that the 2 nd
respondent has not directly inspected the property or
called for satellite images as envisaged under the Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature and character
2025:KER:39352
of the petitioners' property as on the crucial date, i.e.,
12.08.2008, or whether the removal of the petitioners'
property from the data bank would adversely affect the
paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by solely
relying on the report of the 4th respondent, the 2nd
respondent has passed the impugned Ext.P4 order. Thus,
I am satisfied that, Ext.P4 order has been passed
without any application of the mind and the same is
liable to be quashed. Hence, I direct 2 nd 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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 application, in
2025:KER:39352
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 Ext.P2
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/-
SCB.04.06.25. C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
2025:KER:39352
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6867/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE,
RAMANATTUKARA DATED 15.11.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
21.02.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2 ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED
08.12.2023 IN WPC 41165 OF 23
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2024
BEARING FILE NO. 1919 OF 2024 ISSUED BY
THE 2 ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
