Kerala High Court
Vimin C Vidhyan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:38363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 8864 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
VIMIN C VIDHYAN,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. VIDHYADHARAN, CHAKKANALI HOUSE,
MALA, PARANATTUKUNNU, VTC VADAMA,
THRISSUR, KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MINI
VIDHYADHARAN, AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O. VIDHYADHARAN CHAKKANALI HOUSE,
MALA, PARANATTUKUNNU, VTC VADAMA,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680732
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ
SMT.K.VINAYA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MINI CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680121
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE,MUKUNDAPURAM,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680002
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KADUPPASSERY VILLAGE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680683
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN VELLOOKKARA,
VELLOOKKARA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680654
WP(C) NO. 8864 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:38363
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT K K PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 8864 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:38363
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order
and direct the second respondent to re-consider Ext.
P4 (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
10.87 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 441/2-12 of
Kaduppassery Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, Thrissur
District, covered by Ext. P2 document and Ext. P3 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. In the said background, the petitioner had
submitted Ext. P4 application to exclude the property
from the data bank. The second respondent, by solely
relying on the report of the Local Level Monitoring
2025:KER:38363
Committee ('LLMC', for short), has perfunctorily
rejected the Ext. P4 application by Ext. P5 order. Ext.
P5 order is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ
petition.
3. The second respondent has filed a statement,
inter alia, stating that the LLMC has found that the
petitioner's property was not converted before the
coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
and Wet Land Act, 2008 ('Act', for short). Subsequently,
the 5th respondent stated that the land cannot be
excluded from the data bank. There is no illegality in Ext.
P5 order.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The petitioner's specific case is that, his
property is a garden land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. The respondents have erroneously classified
the same as a paddy land.
2025:KER:38363
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 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
2025:KER:38363
the Agricultural Officer or getting a scientific report from
the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment
Centre (KSREC).
8. Ext.P5 order substantiates that the second
respondent has passed the impugned order based on the
recommendations of the LLMC. Going by the Act and the
Rules, the LLMC has no locus-standi to file any report in
a Form 5 application. It is only the Agricultural Offier,
who is a competent authority to file a report regarding
the nature and character of the property. Moreover, the
second respondent has not directly inspected the
property or called for satellite images as envisaged
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Ext. P5 order also shows
that, 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. Therefore, I find that there has been total
non-application of the mind in passing Ext.P5 order.
Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P5 order is liable to be
2025:KER:38363
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
available on record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P5 order is quashed.
(ii). The second 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
procedure provided under Rule 4(4f) at the expense
of the petitioner after calling for a report from the
fifth respondent.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider Ext.P4
application, in accordance with law and as
2025:KER:38363
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 Ext.P4 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/02.06.25
2025:KER:38363
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8864/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING
THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
DOCUMENT DATED 29.1.2020 OF SRO
KALLETTUMKARA
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL08034903027/2023 DATED 29.7.2023
ISSUED BY LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 DATED
31.7.2023
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2024 FILE NO.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL POWER ATTORNEY
DATED 15.2.2025
