Kerala High Court
Ramanunni.P.K vs Sub Collector on 9 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 42980 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:40513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 42980 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
RAMANUNNI.P.K.,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO.B
4122, SOBHA CITY, PUZHAKKAL, THRISSUR, PIN - 680553
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SHRI.SAURAV THAMPAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SUB COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
TANUR KRISHI BHAVAN, TANUR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676302
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
PARIYAPURAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PARIYAPURAM.P.O,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676302
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT SYLAJA S L
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 42980 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:40513
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 42980 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order and
direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the 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 73
cents of land comprised in Survey Nos.135/6 and 135/11
of Pariyapuram Village, Tirur Taluk, Malappuram District
covered by Ext.P1 basic tax receipt. The petitioner's
property is a garden land. Nonetheless, the respondents
have erroneously classified the property as a 'paddy land'
and included it in the data bank. In order to exclude the
property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted
a Form 5 application before the 1st respondent. But, by the
impugned Ext.P4 order, the 1st respondent has
perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application without any
WP(C) NO. 42980 OF 2024
2025:KER:40513
application of mind. The 1st respondent has not directly
inspected the property or called for the satellite images as
envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Hence, the writ
petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's specific case is that, his
property is a garden land. It is not suitable for any paddy
cultivation. The respondents have erroneously classified
the property as a 'paddy land' and included it in the data
bank. Even though the petitioner had submitted a Form 5
application to exclude the property from the data bank,
the same was rejected without any application of mind.
5. 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
WP(C) NO. 42980 OF 2024
2025:KER:40513
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.P4 order substantiates that the 1st
respondent has not directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. He 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 or whether the exclusion of the property from
the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation
in the locality. Thus, I am satisfied and convinced that
Ext.P4 order is passed without any application of mind
and therefore the same is liable to be quashed, and the 1 st
respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider
the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting
to the principles laid down in the aforecited decisions and
the materials available on record.
WP(C) NO. 42980 OF 2024
2025:KER:40513
(i). Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form 5 application
submitted by the petitioner, in accordance
with law. It would be upto to the authorised
officer to either directly inspect the property
or 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 the 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 of the Form 5
application within two months from the date
of production of a copy of this judgment.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/09.06.25
WP(C) NO. 42980 OF 2024
2025:KER:40513
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42980/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
12.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2021
(1) KHC 540 (JOY.K.K VS. REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR & ORS
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2023
(6) KHC 83 (APARNA SASI MENON V. REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANOR)
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 30.07.2024
