Kerala High Court
Shinto vs The District Collector on 23 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 42456 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:35881
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. 42456 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
SHINTO,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. CHACKO CHERIAN, CHAKKACHAMPAKKA MURI, KAVALAM,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688506
BY ADVS.
MUHASIN K.M.
FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
ALAPPUZHA REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICE,THONDAKULANGARA, THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688013
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
KUTTANAD TALUK OFFICE, CHAMPAKKULAM P.O, KUTTAND,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688505
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KAVALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KAVALAM, NARAKATHRA P.O ,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688506
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
NEELAMPEROOR KRISHI BHAVAN,EARA P.O, NEELAMPEROOR,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 686534
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
WP(C) NO. 42456 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:35881
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 42456 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:35881
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 42456 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 order and
to direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P2
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
14.78 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.214/1-1 of
Kavalam Village, Kuttanad Taluk, Alappuzha District,
covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner's
property is a garden land. However, the respondents have
erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and
included in the data bank. Accordingly, the petitioner had
submitted Ext.P3 application to remove the property from
the data bank. However, the 2nd respondent, solely based
on the observations in the data bank, has erroneously
held that the petitioner's property is a paddy land. The 2nd
WP(C) NO. 42456 OF 2024
2025:KER:35881
respondent has not independently considered the true lie,
nature and character of the petitioner's property. Ext.P3
order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. Hence,
the writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement, inter
alia, stating that as per the reports of the Village Officer
and Agricultural Officer, the petitioner's property is
classified as 'Nilam'. The Village Officer had issued a stop
memo against the petitioner for attempting to illegally
convert the land. The report received from the Kerala
State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (in short,
'KSREC') shows that the property is a paddy land,
although it is bordered by a road on the southern side.
The petitioner has converted the land after 2008. Hence,
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 his
property is a garden land and is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. Even though, he submitted an application
WP(C) NO. 42456 OF 2024
2025:KER:35881
before the 2 nd
respondent, the same has been erroneously
rejected solely based on the observations in the data
bank. The 2nd respondent has not independently
considered the matter.
6. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this Court
has held that, it is the nature, lie, character and fitness of
the land, and whether it 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. vs. 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. A reading of Ext.P3 order substantiates that the
2nd respondent has passed the said order without
independently considering the nature and character of
the petitioner's property as on 12.08.2008 or whether the
WP(C) NO. 42456 OF 2024
2025:KER:35881
removal of the petitioner's property from data bank
would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. Even though
in the statement filed by the 2nd respondent, it is
mentioned that a report has been called from the KSREC,
the observation in the report is not reflected in Ext.P3
order. Therefore, it is only to be assumed that there is
total non-application of mind in the matter. As the 2nd
respondent has failed to arrive at any independent finding
regarding the nature, lie and character of the petitioner's
property and there is no finding regarding the
observations of the Agricultural Officer, I am of the firm
view that Ext.P3 order is vitiated and bad in the eyes of
law. Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P3 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 after adverting to the materials available on
record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
WP(C) NO. 42456 OF 2024
2025:KER:35881
(i). Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii). The petitioner would be at liberty to file an
application before the 5th respondent, with a
copy of this judgment, after depositing the
requisite fee, to call for a report from the 6 th
respondent to ascertain the nature, lie and
character of the property;
(iii). The 5th respondent shall, immediately on receipt
of the application, call for a report from the 6th
respondent; 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.P2 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 5th respondent.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/23.05.25
WP(C) NO. 42456 OF 2024
2025:KER:35881
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42456/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
22.11.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
22.11.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a) A true copy of the proceedings of the
District Collector, Alappuzha dated
26.04.2023
