Kerala High Court
Binoj.K vs The District Collector,Palakkad on 10 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:40659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40061 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BINOJ.K,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.K.KERALADHASANUNNI, SARADA NIVAS, PARALI.P.O,
KINAVALLUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678612
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
SMT.ANJANA A.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PALAKKAD,
OFFICE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD,, PIN - 678001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ,CIVIL
STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
3 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CIVIL
STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PARALI-I VILLAGE, PARALI.P.O,PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678612
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, PARALI.P.O,PARALI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678612
WP(C) NO. 40061 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:40659
6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
PARALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,PARALI.P.O, PALAKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD, REP.BY ITS CONVENER, PIN - 678612
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 40061 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:40659
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P7 order and
direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P6 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 0.0943
Hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.683/18 in
Block No.17 of Prali-I Village, Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad
District, covered by Ext.P2 possession certificate and
Ext.P3 location sketch. The petitioner's property is a
converted land. However, the respondents have
erroneously classified the land as 'Nilam' and included it in
the data bank. In order to exclude the property from the
data bank, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P6 application
before the 2nd respondent. But, the 2nd respondent without
directly inspecting the property or calling for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, by
solely relying on the report of the 5 th respondent and
2025:KER:40659
earlier report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and
Environment Centre (in short 'KSREC'), has passed the
impugned Ext.P7 order. Ext.P7 order is passed without any
application of mind. Therefore, Ext.P7 order may be
quashed.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, the petitioner has not remitted any fee to call for
satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
Presumably, the 2nd respondent has relied on the satellite
images received at the time of preparation of the data
bank. Therefore, there is no independent evaluation of
Ext.P6 application.
5. The above submission is refuted by the learned
Government pleader, who submits that, as per the KSREC
report the petitioner's property forms a part of a
'padashekaranm'. Even going by the observations made in
the impugned order, the petitioner's land pattern is a
paddy land. Therefore, there is no error in Ext.P7 order.
2025:KER:40659
6. The petitioner's specific case is that, his property
is a converted land. The respondents have erroneously
classified the same as a paddy land and included it in the
data bank. Even though the petitioner has not paid any
prescribed fee to call for the satellite images, the 2 nd
respondent has relied on the images obtained by the 6 th
respondent for the preparation of the data bank. It is
based on the said report, the 2nd respondent has concluded
that the petitioner's property cannot be excluded from the
data bank. The 2nd respondent has not directly inspected
the property.
7. It is well settled by this Court that, it is nature and
character 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, that 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
2025:KER:40659
Joy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub
Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
8. Ext.P7 order substantiates that the 2 nd respondent
has not directly inspected the property. The impugned
order also does not state as to whether the 2 nd respondent
had called for the satellite images, after the filing of Ext.P6
application. In any given case, there is no independent
finding as to the nature and character of the petitioner's
property as on 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 that
Ext.P7 order has been passed without any application of
mind, and the same is liable to be quashed and the 2 nd
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.P7 order is quashed.
2025:KER:40659
(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P6 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.P6 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
AJ
2025:KER:40659
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40061/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPPER ACCOUNT NO.18455
OF THE PETITIONER DATED 06.12.2022 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED
20.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DATED 17.12.2021
Exhibit P5 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION
DATED 21.02.2022
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN FILE NO.3409/2024
DATED 27.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
