Kerala High Court
K. R. Sankarankutty vs Deputy Collector (R.R.) Ernakulam on 26 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:36228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18370 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
K. R. SANKARANKUTTY
AGED 71 YEARS
SON OF KAITHAVALAPPIL RAMANPILLAI,
RESIDING AT KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, 791,
PALACHUVADU, KAKKANAD P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682030
BY ADV SREEKUMAR S
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R.) ERNAKULAM
FIRST FLOOR OF CIVIL STATION,
ECHAMUKU, KUNNUMPURAM, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682037
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE THRIKKAKARA,
KUNNUMPURAM-CIVIL STATION ROAD,
SEAPORT - AIRPORT ROAD, WEST SIDE,
KUNNUMPURAM, THRIKKAKARA,
KAKKANAD P. O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682037
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
THRIKKAKARA, KUNNUMPURAM-CIVIL STATION ROAD,
SEAPORT - AIRPORT ROAD, WEST SIDE, KUNNUMPURAM,
THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD P. O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN -
682037
2025:KER:36228
WP(C) NO. 18370 OF 2025 2
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:36228
WP(C) NO. 18370 OF 2025 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P2 order
and direct the first respondent to re-consider the Form
5 application submitted by the petitioner 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 4.5 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 105/4-5
of Vazhakkala Village, Ernakulam District covered
by Ext. P1 sale deed. The petitioner's property is a
garden land. However, the respondents have
erroneously classified the petitioner's property as
'Nilam', and included it in the data bank. In order to
remove the property from the data bank, the
petitioner had submitted Form 5
2025:KER:36228
application. However, the first respondent solely
relying on the report of the second respondent and,
without inspecting the property directly or calling for
satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules, has erroneously passed the impugned Ext. P2
order. Hence, Ext. P2 is liable to be quashed.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's case is that, his property is a
garden land, which is not suitable for paddy cultivation.
The respondents have erroneously classified the property
as 'Nilam' in the data bank.
5. In a plethora of judicial precedents, 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
2025:KER:36228
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)).
6. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents
Association and Another v. District Collector,
Ernakulam and others (2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division
Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a
property is lying fallow and gets waterlogged during the
rainy season or otherwise, due to the low-lying nature of
the property, the property 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
2025:KER:36228
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. A reading of Ext.P2 order would substantiate
that the first respondent has not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature, character or
lie 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. He has also not directly inspected the
property or called for satellite images as envisaged
under the rules. Therefore, I hold that there has been
total non-application of the mind in passing Ext.P2 order.
Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P2 order is liable to be
quashed and the first respondent/authorised officer be
directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance
2025:KER:36228
with law, after adverting to the principles of law laid
down in the aforesaid decisions and the materials
available on record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P2 order is quashed.
(ii). The first respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form-5 application, in
accordance with law. It would be up to the
authorised officer to either directly inspect the
property or call for satellite images as per the
procedure provided under Rule 4(4f) at the expense
of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite
images, he shall consider the Form-5 application, in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within three months from the date of the
2025:KER:36228
receipt of the satellite images. However, if he does not
call for such images, he shall dispose of the application
within three months from the date of production of a
copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/26.05.25
2025:KER:36228
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18370/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2002/2006,
DATED 05-06-2006
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 4258/2024,
DATED 27-02-2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST PHOTOGRAPHS OF
THE SUBJECT LAND
