Kerala High Court
Jithin M.M vs State Of Kerala on 25 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:45841
WP(C) NO. 39734 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39734 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 JITHIN M.M.,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O MANOHARAN M.K,MANCHERY HOUSE, CHIRANELLUR
VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, CHIRANELLUR POST,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680501.
2 SHILPA,
AGED 27 YEARS
W/O.JITHIN M.M, MANCHERY HOUSE, CHIRANELLUR
VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK, CHIRANELLUR POST,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680501.
BY ADVS.
SMT.KEERTHI DEVI K.V.
SHRI.JOSE PAUL
SMT.ASHLY MATHEW
SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
SHRI.NESMEL DIVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR,
COLLECTORATE, PIN - 680003.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR COLLECTORATE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003.
2025:KER:45841
WP(C) NO. 39734 OF 2024
2
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
680503.
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHOONDAL VILLAGE KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680502.
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, CHOONDAL VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM
TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680502.
6 STATE OF KERALA (CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA
CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT,
2008), REPRESENTED BY TITS CONVENOR, THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIN BHAVAN, CHOONDHAL
VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,,
PIN - 680502.
SMT.DEEPA V., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:45841
WP(C) NO. 39734 OF 2024
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
==================
W.P (C ) No.39734 of 2024
==================
Dated this the 25th June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P9 order
and direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P7
application submitted by the petitioners in Form 5
under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioners are the owners in possession
of 3.34 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.269/
12-2 in Block No.23 of the Choodal Village,
Kunnakulam Taluk, Thrissur, covered by Ext.P1 sale
deed and Ext.P3 possession certificate. The petitioners'
property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. The petitioners have constructed a
residential building in the said property. However, the
respondents have erroneously classified the same as
2025:KER:45841
WP(C) NO. 39734 OF 2024
'paddy land' and included it in the data bank. In order to
exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioners
had submitted Ext.P7 application before the 2 nd
respondent. But, by the impugned Ext.P9 order, the 2 nd
respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P7
application, without any application of mind and by
solely relying on the report of the 5 th respondent.
Ext.P9 order is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the
writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioners' specific case is that, their
property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. Even though the petitioners had preferred
Ext.P7 application before the 2nd respondent, the same
has been rejected by solely relying on the report of the
5th respondent without rendering any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the
petitioners' property or whether it is suitable for paddy
2025:KER:45841
WP(C) NO. 39734 OF 2024
cultivation as on 12.8.2008.
5. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this
Court has held that, it is the 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)).
6. Ext.P9 order substantiates that the 2nd
respondent has not directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. The 2nd respondent has also not
rendered any independent finding regarding the nature,
2025:KER:45841
WP(C) NO. 39734 OF 2024
character or lie of the petitioners' property as on the
crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of
the petitioners' property from the data bank would
adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality, if
any. Instead, he has passed Ext.P9 order by solely
relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer.
Therefore, I am convinced and satisfied that Ext.P9
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
Ext.P7 application 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.P9 order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P7 application, in
2025:KER:45841
WP(C) NO. 39734 OF 2024
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 petitioners.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider Ext.P7
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
dkr
2025:KER:45841
WP(C) NO. 39734 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39734/2024
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO:3446/2022
DATED 30/12/2022 OF MUNDOOR S.R.O
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE
DATED 23/10/2023 WITH FILE
NO:5071901/677/2023 ISSUED BY THE
CHOONDAL GRAMAPACHAYAT WITH RESPECT TO
THE BUILDING BEARING NO. 265/B
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 2/02/2023 WITH
NO:75354822 ISSUED BY THE CHOONDAL
VILLAGE OFFICE
EXHIBIT P 4 COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
NO:KL08070802134/2023 DATED 30/05/2023
EXHIBIT P 5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
HOUSE AND SURROUNDINGS OF THE LAND ALONG
WITH KSEB ELECTRICITY CONNECTION METER
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRIOR SALE DEED
NO:2623/2004 DATED 23/07/2004 OF MUNDOOR
S.R.O
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION NO:
1/2023/1589211 DATED 26/05/2023
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT P 8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
10/01/2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO:206/2024
BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P 9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT IN FILE NO:8466/2024 DATED
23/06/2024
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE PUBLICATION
DATED 2/03/2024
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
AGRICULTURE OFFICER CHOONDAL DATED
14.03.2024
