Kerala High Court
N.A.Sony vs The District Collector on 25 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:45862
WP(C) NO. 45763 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. 45763 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
N.A.SONY,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O.M.K.ALIAS, LOVEDALE, PADMAPRABHA ROAD,
KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673121.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.AJIN SALAM
SMT.FATHIMA SHALU S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KAIRALI NAGAR, KALPETTA, WAYANAD,
PIN - 673122.
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
CIVIL STATION, KAIRALI NAGAR, WAYANAD, PIN -
673122.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MA CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODELAYORA
HWY, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122.
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
VYTHIRI, KUNNTHIDAVAKA, WAYANAD, PIN - 673576.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MUTTIL SOUTH VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTTIL SOUTH,
MUTTIL P.O, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122.
2025:KER:45862
WP(C) NO. 45763 OF 2024
2
6 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, MUTTIL SOUTH , MUTTIL
WAYANAD, PIN - 673122.
7 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MUTTIL SOUTH, VYTHIRI,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673122.
8 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE,
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE
CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033.
9 THE SECRETARY,
MUTTIL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MUTTIL P.O, WAYANAD, PIN
- 673122.
10 MUTTIL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
MUTTIL SOUTH, MUTTIL P.O, WAYANAD, PIN - 673122.
BY SMT.DEEPA V., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:45862
WP(C) NO. 45763 OF 2024
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
==================
W.P (C ) No.45763 of 2024
==================
Dated this the 25th June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order
and direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Form 5
application submitted by the petitioner under Rule
4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of
4.86 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.197/10 and
4.5 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.197/11 of the
Muttil South Village, Vaithiri Taluk, Wayanad. The
petitioner's property is a converted land. It is not
suitable for paddy cultivation. The petitioner has
constructed a residential building in the said property.
But the 9th respondent issued a stop memo directing
the petitioner not to carry out the construction since
2025:KER:45862
WP(C) NO. 45763 OF 2024
the property is classified as 'nilam' in the revenue
records. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a
Form-5 application before the 2nd respondent. But, by
the impugned Ext.P4 order, the 2nd respondent has
perfunctorily rejected Form-5 application, without any
application of mind. Ext.P4 order is ex facie illegal
and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement
asserting that the Agricultural Officer has inspected
the site and found that the applied property is suitable
for paddy cultivation. Therefore, he has been
recommended not to exclude the petitioner's property
from the data bank.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned Government Pleader and the learned
Standing Counsel for respondents 9 and 10.
5. The petitioner's specific case is that, his
property is a converted land. It is not suitable for
paddy cultivation. He has already constructed a
2025:KER:45862
WP(C) NO. 45763 OF 2024
building in the said property. Even though he
submitted a Form-5 application before the 2 nd
respondent, the same has been rejected solely relying
on the report of the 6th respondent and without
rendering any independent finding regarding the
nature and character of the petitioner's property or
whether it is suitable for paddy cultivation as on
12.8.2008.
6. 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
2025:KER:45862
WP(C) NO. 45763 OF 2024
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
7. Ext.P4 order substantiates that the 2 nd
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, character or lie of the petitioner's property as
on the crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008, or whether the
removal of the petitioner's property from the data
bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in
the locality, if any. Instead, in the impugned Ext.P4
order, he has solely relied on the report of the
Agricultural Officer. 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 2nd respondent/authorised officer be
directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in
accordance with law, after adverting to the principles
2025:KER:45862
WP(C) NO. 45763 OF 2024
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 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Form-5 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 Form-5
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
2025:KER:45862
WP(C) NO. 45763 OF 2024
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:45862
WP(C) NO. 45763 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 45763/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DATED
20.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
06.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED
04.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED
02.02.2024
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY
