Kerala High Court
Thomas Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:38315
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. 9034 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
THOMAS MATHEW,
AGED 70 YEARS
THOLOO PARAMPIL,GRACE VILLA THEKKEMALA P.O.,
KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689654
BY ADV SMT.K.P.SANTHI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691523
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHENCHERRY,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689654
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, KOZHENCHERRY,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689654
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOZHNECHERRY VILLAGE, KOZHNECHERRY,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689654
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT K K PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 9034 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:38315
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order
and direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext. P3
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
12.33 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 251/5 and
251/7-A of Kozhencherry Village, Kozhencherry Taluk,
Pathanamthitta District, covered by Ext. P1 land tax
receipt. The petitioner's property is a garden land filled
with coconut trees and another plantation. However,
the respondents have erroneously classified the
petitioner's property as wetland and included it in the
data bank. In the said background, the petitioner had
submitted Ext. P3 application to exclude the property
from the data bank. The second respondent, without
2025:KER:38315
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules,
solely by relying on the report of the third respondent,
has perfunctorily rejected Ext. P3 application by the
impugned Ext. P4 order. Ext. P4 order is illegal and
arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The second respondent has filed a statement,
inter alia, contending that the third respondent has
reported that the petitioner's property is marshy in
nature and is also having natural water flowing channels.
Therefore, the petitioner's property cannot be excluded
from the data bank. Hence, Ext. P4 order is justifiable.
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 and is not suitable for paddy cultivation.
The respondents have erroneously classified the land as
wetland and included it in the data bank. The second
respondent has erroneously rejected Ext. P3 application.
2025:KER:38315
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. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents
Association and Another v. District Collector,
Ernakulam and others (2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division
Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a
property is lying fallow and gets waterlogged during the
rainy season or otherwise, due to the low-lying nature of
2025:KER:38315
the property, the property cannot be treated as wetland
or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar
view has been taken by this Court in Aparna Sasi
Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda,
(2023 (6) KHC 83), holding that the prime consideration
to retain a property in data bank is to ascertain whether
paddy cultivation is possible in the land.
8. Ext.P4 order substantiates 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, the date
of the commencement of the Act, or whether the removal
of the petitioner's property from the data bank would
adversely affect the paddy cultivation. He has also not
directly inspected the property or called for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
Instead, he has solely relied on the report of the third
respondent and rejected the application. Therefore, I
hold that there has been total non-application of the
2025:KER:38315
mind in passing Ext.P4 order. Hence, I am satisfied that
Ext.P4 order is liable to be 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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii). The second respondent/authorised officer
is directed to reconsider Ext. P3 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.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider Ext. P3
2025:KER:38315
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 Ext. P3 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:38315
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9034/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 6-6-
2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOZHENCHERRY
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26-8-
2017 SUBMITTED TO THE LLMC
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
10-10-2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 7-12-
2024 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
