Kerala High Court
T.A.Marakkarkutty vs State Of Kerala on 26 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO.13090 OF 2025
2025:KER:46698
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13090 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 T.A.MARAKKARKUTTY,
AGED 76 YEARS
S/O KUNJIPOKKAR, SOUTH GIRINAGAR, MYTHRI HOUSE NO.
26, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020
2 AJITHKUMAR R.,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O RAMAKRISHNAPILLA, ARYAGAYATHRI HOUSE,
UDAYAGIRINAGAR, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682307
3 RAVEENDRAN P.,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O K. KUNJU RAMAN, S.S. ENCLAVE G278, PANAMPALLY
NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682036
4 KUNJUNNI PILLA A.R.,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O RAGHAVAN PILLA, KUZHYVILA HOUSE, KOTTARA,
MEEYANNOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691537
5 K.K. THAMPI VARGHESE,
AGED 78 YEARS
S/O K.P. KURIAKOSE, KOPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAPPILLY
LINE, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305
6 VIJAYALAKSHMYAMMA,
AGED 75 YEARS
W/O K.K. MADHAVANKUTTY, MEERA NIVAS, ELLOOR EAST,
UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683501
7 VALSA N.S.,
AGED 77 YEARS
W/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SREEVALSAM HOUSE, CRA 57,
CHOTTANIKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682312
WP(C) NO.13090 OF 2025
2025:KER:46698
2
8 ALICE PUNNOOSE,
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O PUNNOOSE KOSHY, MODAYIL HOUSE, MELETHAT ROAD,
NETTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682040
BY ADV SHRI.K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI,
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
4 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R.),
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
5 THE VILLAG E OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, KUREEKKAD, KUREEKAD,ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682312
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, CHOTTANIKARA, CHOTTANIKARA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682312
7 THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
8 THE COCHIN SHIPYARD STAFF CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE
CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD NO. E 346,
PERUMANNOOR, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 682015
WP(C) NO.13090 OF 2025
2025:KER:46698
3
GP- JESSY S SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.13090 OF 2025
2025:KER:46698
4
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.13090 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Exts.P5 to P12
orders and direct the 3rd respondent to reconsider Form 5
applications submitted by the petitioners 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
the properties situated in Kureekad Village, Kanayannur
Taluk, purchased by different sale deeds. The petitioners'
properties are converted lands. They are not suitable for
paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have
erroneously classified the properties as 'converted land'
and included them in the data bank. To exclude the
properties from the data bank, the petitioners had
submitted Form 5 applications before the 3rd respondent.
But, by Exts.P5 to P12 orders, the 3 rd respondent had
WP(C) NO.13090 OF 2025
2025:KER:46698
perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 applications, solely on
the basis of the report of the Agricultural Officer. The 3 rd
respondent had not directly inspected the property or
called for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules. Exts.P5 to P12 orders are 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
properties are converted lands, which is discernible from
Exts.P4 data bank. Even though they submitted the Form 5
applications, the 3rd respondent did not directly inspect the
properties or call for the satellite images as envisaged
under the Rules. Instead, by solely relying on the report of
the Agricultural Officer, who in turn has relied on the
report of the Local Level Monitoring Committe (LLMC), has
held that the properties cannot be excluded from the data
bank.
WP(C) NO.13090 OF 2025
2025:KER:46698
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. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association
and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others
(2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division Bench of this Court has held
that, merely because a property is lying fallow and water
gets logged during rainy season or otherwise, due to the
low lying nature of the property, it cannot be treated as
WP(C) NO.13090 OF 2025
2025:KER:46698
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.
7. In Rasheed C v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub
Collector (2025 KHC 1666), this Court has succinctly held
that, a Form 5 application cannot be considered on the
basis of the observations of the LLMC, since the said
procedure is not contemplated under the Rules. The Rules
only provide to call for a report from the Agricultural
Officer or for getting a scientific report from the Kerala
State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC).
8. Exts.P5 to P12 orders undoubtedly substantiate
that, the 3rd respondent 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
WP(C) NO.13090 OF 2025
2025:KER:46698
character of the properties as on 12.08.2008, or whether
the exclusion of the properties from the data bank would
adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality.
Instead, by solely relying on the recommendations of the
LLMC, the impugned orders have been passed. Thus, I am
satisfied that Exts.P5 to P12 orders are passed without any
application of mind, the same are 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). Exts.P5 to P12 orders are quashed.
(ii). The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider From 5 applications, in
accordance with law. It would be up to the authorised
officer to either directly inspect the properties or call
for satellite images as per the procedure provided
WP(C) NO.13090 OF 2025
2025:KER:46698
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 applications, 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 properties, he shall dispose of the
applications within two months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner
would be at liberty to produce a copy of the writ
petition and additional documents with a copy of this
judgment before the authorised officer.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SCB.26.06.25.
WP(C) NO.13090 OF 2025
2025:KER:46698
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13090/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE CHOTANIKKARA
GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 25.03.2004 OBTAINED
UNDER RTI ACT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 06.04.2004
ISSUED BY THE CHOTTANIKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LAYOUT
OF THE PLOTS DATED NIL
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA
BANK DATED 23.02.2012
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.K
29/14001/2022 DATED 12.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION
OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.K
14/10226/2022 DATED 11.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION
OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.K
13/10198/2022 DATED 02.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION
OF THE 3RD PETITIONER
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.K
14/10243/2022 DATED 11.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION
OF THE 4TH PETITIONER
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. K-
14/10202/2022 DATED 11.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION
OF THE 5TH PETITIONER
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.K
14/10120/2022 DATED 17.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION
OF THE 6TH PETITIONER
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.K
14/10203/2022 DATED 02.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION
OF THE 7TH PETITIONER
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.
2503/2024 DATED 01.11.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION OF
THE 8TH PETITIONER
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT RECEIVED BY THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FROM KSRSEC BEARING NO.
A-172/2015/KSREC/14806/18 DATED 08.03.2019
WP(C) NO.13090 OF 2025
2025:KER:46698
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT RECEIVED BY THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FROM KSRSEC BEARING NO.
A-172/2015/KSREC/14804/18DATED 08.03.2019
RELATING TO SURVEY NO.78
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT RECEIVED BY THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FROM KSRSEC BEARING NO.
A-172/2015/KSREC/14805/18 DATED 08.03.2019
RELATING TO SURVEY NO.93
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure C1 A true copy of the work memo submitted by the
counsel for the petitioner
Annexure C2 A True copy of the work memo submitted by the
5th respondent
Annexure C3 A True copy of the work memo submitted by the
6th respondent
Annexure C4 A true copy of the photograph showing the
entrance to the property
Annexure C5 A true copy of the photograph showing Plot No.
10, which is the property of the petitioner in
Annexure C6 A true copy of the photograph showing the pit
in this property(plot No.28)
Annexure C7 A true copy of the photograph of pit (plot
No.41)
Annexure C8 A true copy of the photograph of pit (plot
No.32)
Annexure C9 A true copy of the photograph of pit (plot
No.56)
Annexure C10 A true copy of the photograph of pit (plot
No.58)
Annexure C11 A true copy of the photograph of pit (plot
No.70)
Annexure C12 A true copy of the photograph of pit (plot
No.88)
Annexure C13 A true copy of the photograph of pit (plot
No.01)
Annexure C14 A true copy of the photograph of pit (plot
No.17)
