Kerala High Court
Madhavi Madhavan vs The District Collector on 4 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 43533 OF 2023
1
2025:KER:39103
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. 43533 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
MADHAVI MADHAVAN,
AGED 87 YEARS
W/O. MADHAVAN, MADASSERIKUDI HOUSE, VAIKKARA P. O.,
RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683545
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHAKTHI PRAKASH
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SMT.AMJATHA D.A.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN
- 682030
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GROUND
FLOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA-PATTIMATTOM ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA,
PIN - 686673
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE, POOPPANI ROAD,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683543
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PULLUVAZHY,
RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683541
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
RAYAMANGALAM KRISHI BHAVAN, KEEZHILLAM,
WP(C) NO. 43533 OF 2023
2
2025:KER:39103
RAYAMANANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683541
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
SC SRI VISHNU S
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 43533 OF 2023
3
2025:KER:39103
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 43533 of 2023
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 order and
direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider 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 petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.65
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.238/8-1-2 of
Rayamanalam Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk, Ernakulam
District covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The
petitioner's property is a dry land. However, the
respondents have erroneously classified the property as
'nilam' and included it in the data bank. In the said
background, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2
application to exclude the petitioner's property from the
data bank. But, the 2nd respondent, by solely relying on
the report of the Agricultural Officer and without directly
WP(C) NO. 43533 OF 2023
2025:KER:39103
inspecting the property or calling for satellite images as
envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, has passed the
impugned Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 order is illegal and
arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 1st respondent has filed a statement, inter-
alia, stating that the petitioner's application was examined
by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (in short,
'LLMC'), who conducted a site inspection. Based on the
decision of the LLMC, the Agricultural Officer has
reported that the Village Officer has issued a stop memo
against the illegal filling of the soil and the illegal
construction of a foundation for a compound wall in the
property. The petitioner's property is portion of a
'padasekharam'. There are three coconut trees in the said
property which seems to be planted about ten years back
and also bunds constructed years back. There is water
logging in the property and there is a stream flowing on
the sides. Therefore, the LLMC has recommended that the
property cannot be excluded from the data bank. Hence,
the writ petition may be dismissed.
WP(C) NO. 43533 OF 2023
2025:KER:39103
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 dry land. The respondents have erroneously
included the same in the data bank. Even though she filed
an application to exclude the property from the data bank,
the 2nd respondent, without inspecting the property
directly or calling for satellite images, by solely relying on
the report of the LLMC, has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P2
application. The course adopted by the 2 nd respondent is
unsustainable in law.
6. In a plethora of judicial pronouncements, 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
WP(C) NO. 43533 OF 2023
2025:KER:39103
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. In Rasheed C v. Revenue Divisional
Officer/Sub Collector (2025 KHC 1666), this Court has
succinctly held that, a Form 5 application cannot be
considered on the basis of the observations of the LLMC,
since the said procedure is not contemplated under the
Rules. The Rules only provide to call for a report from the
Agricultural Officer or to get a scientific report from the
Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre
(KSREC).
8. Ext.P3 order undoubtedly establishes that the
2nd respondent has not directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite images as per the mandate under
the Rules. Instead he had solely relied on the report of the
LLMC, which is not an empowered authority under the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008
to give a report in a Form 5 application. It is evident that
even the Agricultural Officer has not inspected property
WP(C) NO. 43533 OF 2023
2025:KER:39103
directly. Instead has relied on the observations made by
the LLMC. The 2nd respondent has also 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 on which the Act came into force, or
whether the removal of the petitioner's property from the
data bank would adversly affect the paddy cultivation.
Hence, I am satisfied that there is total non-application of
mind in passing Ext.P3 order which is liable to be quashed
and the 2nd respondent/authorised officer be directed to
reconsider the matter afresh, and in accordance with law,
after adverting to the principles laid down in the
aforecited 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 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 application, in accordance
with law. It would be upto to the authorised
officer to either directly inspect the property or
WP(C) NO. 43533 OF 2023
2025:KER:39103
call for satellite images as per the procedure
provided under rule 4(4f) of the Rules 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/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/04.06.25
WP(C) NO. 43533 OF 2023
2025:KER:39103
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43533/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
21.06.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
03.01.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
