Kerala High Court
Ali vs The District Collector, Ernakulam on 12 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:41758
WP(C) NO.4655 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4655 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ALI,
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O KOCHUNNY, PLACHERY EDATHALA P.O., POOKATTUPADY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683561
BY ADV SHRI.N.KRISHNA RAJA MAULI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
COLLECTORATE, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
COLLECTORATE,FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA, GROUND FLOOR, PATTIMATTOM -
MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686673
4 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683543
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O.,
2025:KER:41758
WP(C) NO.4655 OF 2025
2
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683562
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KIZHAKKAMBALAM KRISHI BHAVAN,KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683562
SR GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:41758
WP(C) NO.4655 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 4655 of 2025
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order
and direct the 3rd 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 6
Ares and 40 Sq. meters of land comprised in Survey
No.99/3 of Kizhakkambalam 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 same as 'Nilam' and included it in the data bank. In
2025:KER:41758
WP(C) NO.4655 OF 2025
order to exclude the property from the data bank, the
petitioner had preferred Ext.P3 application before the
3rd respondent. But, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, the
3rd respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P3
application, without directly inspecting the property or
calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. Ext. P4 order is illegal and arbitrary.
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 'dry land'. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. Even though he submitted Ext.P3 application
to exclude the property from the data bank, the same has
been rejected without any application of mind .
5. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this Court
has held that, it is the nature, lie, character and fitness of
2025:KER:41758
WP(C) NO.4655 OF 2025
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)).
6. Ext.P4 order substantiates that the 3rd
respondent/authorised officer 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
2025:KER:41758
WP(C) NO.4655 OF 2025
crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008, or whether the exclusion of
the petitioner's property from the data bank would
adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality. Thus,
I am convinced and satisfied that Ext.P4 order has been
passed without any application of mind, and the same is
liable to be quashed and the 3rd 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 3rd 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
2025:KER:41758
WP(C) NO.4655 OF 2025
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 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
SCB.12.06.25.
2025:KER:41758
WP(C) NO.4655 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4655/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED
02.11.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF DATA
BANK OF KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE ISSUED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 18.09.2019
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
26.03.2022 IN RESPECT OF SURVEY NOS. 99/3
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2023
BEARING FILE NO. 11788/2023 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
