Kerala High Court
Dr Venugopalan P.G vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO.13701 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:35189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2025 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13701 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
DR VENUGOPALAN P.G.,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O P.T.GOPALAN,ARAVINDHAM (H),KUMARAPURAM DESOM,
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PATTAM
VILLAGE, PIN - 695011
BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP
SMT.SWETHA R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 SUB COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE.
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 TAHSILDAR,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOL THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AVANUR VILLAGE ,THRISSUR, PIN - 680541
5 VILLAGE OFFICER,
AVANOOR,THRISSUR, PIN - 680541
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.13701 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:35189
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order and
direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P5 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
0.4350 hectors of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.23/42-
1, 23/43, 23/46, 23/48, 23/49, 23/49-2, 23/49-3, 24/51-1,
24/53, 24/56, 24/57, 24/84 and 24/88, covered by Ext.P1
land tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a converted
land much prior to 2008. However, the respondents have
erroneously classified the land as 'Nilam' and included the
property in the data bank prepared under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. In the
said background, in 2016, the petitioner had submitted a
Form 5 application before the 2nd respondent. At that
2025:KER:35189
time the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) had
observed that the petitioner's property can be removed
from the data bank. Later, the petitioner came to learn
that his Form 5 application was misplaced. But, the
respondents did not remove the petitioner's property
from the data bank. Consequently, the petitioner
submitted Ext.P5 application before the 2nd respondent on
05.07.2022. But, by the impugned Ext.P6 cryptic order,
the 2nd respondent has rejected the same without any
application of mind or without any sufficient reason.
Ext.P6 is erroneous and illegal. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement, inter
alia, stating that in the meeting of the LLMC committee
on 11.02.2020 and 20.03.2020, it was decided not to
exclude the petitioner's property from the data bank.
Therefore, on the basis of the report of the Agricultural
Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer has rejected the
petitioner's application. There is no error in Ext.P6 order.
Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
2025:KER:35189
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The specific case of petitioner is that, his
property is a converted land much prior to 2008. In fact
in Ext.P3 , the LLMC has observed that the petitioner's
property can be excluded from the data bank. However,
the 2nd respondent, solely on the basis of the decision of
the LLMC, has rejected Ext.P5 application without any
independent evaluation or finding.
6. It is well settled in a host of judicial precedents of
this Court that, it is 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
2025:KER:35189
386) and Joy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional
Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021
(1) KLT 433)).
7. A reading of Ext.P6 order reveals that the 2 nd
respondent has not entered into any independent
evaluation/finding regarding the nature, lie or character
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. Instead, it is solely based on the
observations of the LLMC, that the 2 nd respondent has
held that the property cannot be removed from the data
bank.
8. 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,
because, such a procedure is not contemplated under the
Rules. The Rules only provide to call for a report from the
Agricultural Officer or call for a scientific report from the
2025:KER:35189
Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre
(KSREC).
9. Ext.P6 shows that the 2nd respondent has not
referred to the report of the Agricultural Officer or called
for a report from the KSREC. Instead, he has blindly
relied on the report of the LLMC, which is not envisaged
under the Act. Therefore, the entire decision making
process leading to Ext.P6 is vitiated and is liable to be
quashed, and the authorised officer be directed to
reconsider Ext.P5 application afresh, after adverting to
the principles laid down in the aforecited decisions and
the materials on record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P6 order is quashed.
(ii). The petitioner would be at liberty to file an
application before the 4th respondent, with a copy of
this judgment, after depositing the requisite fee, to
call for a report from the KSREC, to ascertain the
nature, lie and character of the property;
2025:KER:35189
(iii). The 4th respondent shall, immediately on
receipt of the application, call for a report from the
KSREC; and on receipt of the same, within four
weeks forward the same with his report to the 2 nd
respondent.
(iv). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer shall
reconsider Ext.P4 application, in accordance with
law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within three months from the date of receipt of a
report from the 4th respondent.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,
JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:35189
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13701/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED01-04- 2023 ISSUED BY THE VELLAPPAYA
VILLAGE OFFICE
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT
PERTAININGTO THE PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPYOF THE MINUTES OF LLMC MEETING
DATED 22.11.2018
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DRAFT
DATA BANK PREPARED AND PUBLISHED BY
AVANOOR KRISHIBHAVAN
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATIONSUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER UNDER FORM 5 DATED
05/07/2022
