Kerala High Court
Kairali Samskarika Vedi vs The Agricultural Officer And Convenor on 27 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO.12067 OF 2024
2025:KER:46969
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12067 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KAIRALI SAMSKARIKA VEDI,
KODATHOOR, PERUMPADAPPA P O, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY PRAMOD K.S, PIN - 679580
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212)
SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE
SHRI.GOKUL KRISHNA
SHRI.MANOJKUMAR G.
SHRI.ASHOK MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AND CONVENOR,
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KRISHI BHAVAN,
PERUMPADAPPA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679580
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR, TIRUR,
OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MINI CIVIL STATION, TIRUR, KERALA, PIN - 676101
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.12067 OF 2024
2025:KER:46969
2
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.12067 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P7 order and
direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider the 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 15
cents of land comprised in Survey No.243/2 of Kodathoor
Desom, Perumpadappa Village, Ponnani Taluk,
Malappuram District, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. The
petitioner's property is a 'converted land'. It is not suitable
for paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have
erroneously classified the same as 'paddy land' and
included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from
the data bank, the petitioner had submitted a Form 5
application before the 2nd respondent. But, by the
WP(C) NO.12067 OF 2024
2025:KER:46969
impugned Ext.P7 order, the 2nd respondent has
perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application without any
application of mind, by solely relying on the report of the
Agricultural Officer. Ext. P7 order is illegal and arbitrary.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent had filed a statement, asserting
that, the Village Officer has reported that, out of the
applied land only 2.02 Ares of land was converted before
2008. In the site inspection that was conducted by an
Officer of the 2nd respondent the same view was reiterated.
After verifying the satellite images again it was found that
only a portion of the applied land was converted prior to
2008. The remaining property is lying barren. Hence,
there is no illegality in Ext.P7 order.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
5. The petitioner's specific case is that, its property is
a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation.
Even though the petitioner has submitted the Form 5
WP(C) NO.12067 OF 2024
2025:KER:46969
application to exclude the property from the data bank, the
2nd respondent, without directly inspecting the property
and without rendering any independent finding regarding
the nature and character of the petitioner's property as on
12.08.2008, has rejected the said application.
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 Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
7. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association
and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others
WP(C) NO.12067 OF 2024
2025:KER:46969
(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
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 Ext.P7 order substantiates that, the 2 nd respondent
has passed the order based on the report of the 1 st
respondent and Ext.P6 KSREC report. In Ext.P5 report, the
1st respondent has stated that 5 cents of land was
converted prior to 2008 and the rest of the land is lying
fallow. Similarly, in Ext.P6 report it is observed and
concluded that the applied property is bordered by a road
and lying fallow in the data of 2008, which pattern has
continued in the data of 2010. In the datas of 2020 and
WP(C) NO.12067 OF 2024
2025:KER:46969
2022 the applied propery is under scattered mixed
vegetation/plantation/trees on the southern border.
8. Notwithstanding the above specific findings in
Ext.P6 report and also the report of the 1 st respondent, the
2nd respondent, without directly inspecting the property,
has rejected the said report and contended that the
property cannot be excluded from the data bank.
9. The 2nd respondent was bound to either directly
inspect the property or relied on the satellite images as
envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, without
directly inspecting the property he has shunned Ext.P6
report in its entirety. The procedure adopted by the 2 nd
respondent is erroneous and in violation of the Rules.
Therefore, I am satisfied that Ext.P7 order is 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 of law laid down
in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on
WP(C) NO.12067 OF 2024
2025:KER:46969
record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P7 order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form 5 application
submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law
and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, 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.27.06.25.
WP(C) NO.12067 OF 2024
2025:KER:46969
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12067/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2173/2013 DATED
16-04-2013 OF SRO, PONNANI
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.1210/12 DATED
24-03-2012 ISSUED BY PERUMPADAPPA GRAMA
PANCHAYATH
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 02-11-2017 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER PDPA 11/2021-22 DATED
08-12-2021 FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
PERUMPADAPPA TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, TIRUR
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF INSPECTION REPORT OF THE
JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT DATED 08-02-2023
Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 31/7/2023 OF THE
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING & ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE .
Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03-11-2023 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SUB COLLECTOR, TIRUR
