Kerala High Court
Thahani vs The District Collector, Thrissur on 23 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 16744 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:35780
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. 16744 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
THAHANI,
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O SHABEER, THEPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAPPINIVATTOM P.O,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680685
BY ADVS. SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS
SRI.JOEMON ANTONY
SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN
SRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO
SMT.ANJANA P.V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR,
1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD,
KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE , THRISSUR, KERALA,
PIN - 680003
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680125
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD,
KALYAN NAGAR,AYYANTHOLE , THRISSUR, KERALA,
PIN - 680003
4 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
KODUNGALLUR TALUK OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL
STATION, NH-17, STAR NAGAR, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680664
WP(C) NO. 16744 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:35780
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PAPPININVATTOM VILLAGE OFFICE, MATHILAKAM,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680685
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICE MATHILAKAM, BLOCK ROAD,
MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR,KERALA, PIN - 680685
7 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR-THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICE
MATHILAKAM, BLOCK ROAD, MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680685
8 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
BY SMT.DEEPA V, GP
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. 16744 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:35780
C.S.DIAS, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 16744 of 2025
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2025
JUDGMENT
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 7.61
Ares of land in Block No.3 of Survey Nos.142/4-2 and
142/4-4 of the Pappinivattom Village, Kodungallur Taluk,
Thrissur District, covered by Ext.P1 title deeds and Ext.P3
land tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a garden
land. However, the respondents have erroneously
classified the property as paddy land and included it in
the data bank. In the said background, the petitioner had
submitted Ext.P5 application before the 2nd respondent.
2025:KER:35780
The 2nd respondent, based on the observations of the
Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) and without
independently considering Ext.P5 application, has
rejected the same by the impugned Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6
is erroneous and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's specific case is that, her property
is a garden land. The respondents have erroneously
classified her property as paddy land and included it in
the data bank.
5. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this Court
has held 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
2025:KER:35780
(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. A reading of Ext.P6 order, would establish that
the 2nd respondent has not independently assessed or
verified the character of the petitioner's property.
Instead, the 2nd respondent has, solely on the basis of the
observations made by the LLMC, has passed the
impugned order.
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 procedure is not envisaged under the Act. The
Rules only provide to call for a report from the
Agricultural Officer to ascertain the character of the
applicant's property. If the Revenue Divisional Officer has
any doubt in his mind, he can also direct the Agricultural
2025:KER:35780
Officer to call for a scientific report from the Kerala State
Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) as
contemplated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
8. In the case at hand, it is without calling for any
report from the 6th respondent or without getting a report
from the KSREC, the 2nd respondent has blindly accepted
the observations made by the LLMC. The course adopted
by the 2nd respondent is erroneous and untenable. Ext.P6
order is passed without any application of mind and the
entire decision making process is vitiated and erroneous.
Hence, I am convinced that Ext.P6 order is liable to be
quashed and the authorised officer be directed to
reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law,
the principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decision, and after adverting to all the materials available
on record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P6 order is quashed.
2025:KER:35780
(ii). The petitioner would be at liberty to file an
application before the 6th 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 6th 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.P5 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 6th respondent.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,
JUDGE
SCB.23.05.25
2025:KER:35780
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16744/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.904/2018 EXECUTED
ON 30-04-2018 BEFORE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
MATHILAKAM
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.905/2018 EXECUTED
ON 30-04-2018 BEFORE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
MATHILAKAM
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
FROM THE 5TH RESPONDENT OFFICE DATED 21-09-2021
OFFICE
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF PETITIONER'S
PROPERTY
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11-05-2023
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 20-11-2024 VIDE FILE
