Kerala High Court
Salomi Joseph vs District Collector on 23 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:35493
WP(C) NO. 27459 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2025 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27459 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SALOMI JOSEPH,
AGED 85 YEARS
W/O A.P.JOSEPH, ANNIKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, PUTHUVELI,
VELIYANNUR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686636
BY ADVS.
V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
P.R.REENA
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALA MINI CIVIL STATION, PALA BYPASS RD, PALA,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VELIYANNUR, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686634
4 ADDL.R4: AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
VELIYANNOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686634; ADDL.R4 IS
SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.05.2025
2025:KER:35493
WP(C) NO. 27459 OF 2024
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:35493
WP(C) NO. 27459 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order
and direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P3
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
18.21 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.128/8-1 of
the Veliyannur Village in Kottayam District, covered by
Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a
garden land. However, the respondents have
erroneously classified the land as paddy land and
included it in the data bank. In the said background,
the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application, to
remove her property from the data bank. The 2 nd
respondent, solely relying on the reports of the
additional 4th respondent and the Village Officer, has
2025:KER:35493
WP(C) NO. 27459 OF 2024
held that the petitioner's property cannot be removed
from the data bank. In fact, the 2 nd respondent has
not independently assessed the nature, lie, and
character of the petitioner's property as on 12.8.2008,
the date the Act came into force. The 2 nd respondent
ought to have also called for a report from the KSREC
to have assessed the character of the property as
contemplated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. The entire
decision making process leading to Ext.P4 order is
erroneous and liable to be quashed. Hence, the writ
petition.
3. The 1st respondent has filed a statement, inter
alia, stating that as per the report of the additional 4 th
respondent, the petitioner's property is low lying paddy
land and is water logged. Therefore, the petitioner's
property cannot be removed from the data bank.
Moreover, the Local Level Monitoring Committee
(LLMC) by report dated 11.06.2024 has recommended
not to remove the land from the data bank. Hence,
2025:KER:35493
WP(C) NO. 27459 OF 2024
the writ petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The petitioner's specific case is that, her
property is a garden land and is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. The 2nd respondent has not independently
evaluated the nature, lie and character of the
petitioner's property as on 2008. It was up to the 2 nd
respondent to have called for a report from the KSREC
and ascertained the character of the property as on
2008.
6. It is well settled by this Court in a plethora
of precedents 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, 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],
2025:KER:35493
WP(C) NO. 27459 OF 2024
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. Ext.P4 order reveals that the 2 nd respondent
had called for reports from the Village Officer and the
additional 4th respondent. Going by the Scheme of the
Act, it is only the additional 4th respondent, who is the
competent officer, to file a report in an application
under Form 5. Actually, the Agricultural Officer has
only reported that the petitioner's property is a low
lying paddy land and water logged. However, the 2 nd
respondent has not rendered any independent finding
regarding the nature and character of the petitioner's
property as on the crucial date i.e., 12.8.2008 or
whether the removal of the petitioner's property from
the data bank would adversely affect the paddy
cultivation. The 2nd respondent has also failed to call
for a report from the KSREC, as contemplated under
2025:KER:35493
WP(C) NO. 27459 OF 2024
Rule 4 (4f) of the Rules, to ascertain the character of
the petitioner's property.
8.In Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], this Court has succinctly
held that, just because a property is lying fallow, the
land cannot be brought within the definition of paddy
land. Instead, the Revenue Divisional Officer has to be
satisfied that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation
and left fallow. It is only on satisfying the twin
conditions, can the property be treated as paddy land
falling within the purview of the Act.
9. In the instant case, there is no such finding as
stated above. Hence, I find there is total non-
application of mind in passing Ext.P4 order.
Therefore, I am convinced that Ext.P4 order is liable
to be quashed and the 2nd respondent be directed to
reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law,
the principles laid down by this Court in the aforecited
decision and the materials available on record.
2025:KER:35493
WP(C) NO. 27459 OF 2024
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii). The petitioner would be at liberty to file
an application before the additional 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;
(iii). The additional 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 2nd respondent.
(iv). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer
shall reconsider Ext.P3 application, in accordance
with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within two months from the date of receipt of
a report from the additional 4th respondent.
2025:KER:35493
WP(C) NO. 27459 OF 2024
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS,
JUDGE
rmm23/5/2025
2025:KER:35493
WP(C) NO. 27459 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27459/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
26.08.2023 ISSUED TO PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF PUBLISHED
DATA BANK OF VELIYANNUR GRAMAPANCHAYATH
DATED 03.02.2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
26.08.2023
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 07.12.2023,
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.01.2024
OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER
Exhibit 6 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION STATUS DATED
23.07.2024
