Kerala High Court
Josy Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 26 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 41592 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:36331
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. 41592 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
JOSY JOSEPH,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O V.T. JOSEPH, VALIAPARAMPIL HOUSE, NALUKODY P.O.,
PAIPPAD, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -
686548
BY ADVS.
SANIL JOSE
P.G.SUDHEESH
BONNY BENNY
K.P.ANTONY BINU
AMALJITH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686030
3 DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
(RR)/RDO U/S 2(XVA) FOR KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK
OFFICE, NEAR SUBHASH PARK, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682011
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET
LAND ACT, 2008, THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 682301
WP(C) NO. 41592 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:36331
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN,THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 682301
6 ADDL.R6.KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR [IS IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 16/12/2024 IN I.A. 1/2024 IN WP(C)
41592/2024.]
OTHER PRESENT:
GP 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:
WP(C) NO. 41592 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:36331
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.41592 of 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order and
to direct the 3rd respondent to reconsider Ext.P4
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 3
Ares 16 Sq. Meters of land comprised in Old Sy.No.141/1
(Re.Sy.No.122) of Thekkumbhagam Village, Kanayannur
Taluk, Ernakulam District covered by Ext.P1 sale deed and
Ext.P2 land tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a
converted land as early as in 1990. He has constructed
compound walls and has been doing cultivation in the
same. Yet, the respondents have erroneously classified the
land as 'converted land' and included it in the data bank.
In the said background, the petitioner had submitted
Ext.P4 application before the 3rd respondent to remove the
WP(C) NO. 41592 OF 2024
2025:KER:36331
property from the data bank. However, without
conducting any inspection or calling for any satellite
pictures from the Central/State Institute of Science and
Technology as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, the
3rd respondent has erroneously dismissed Ext.P4
application, by the impugned Ext.P5 order, by solely
relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer/5 th
respondent, who in turn has relied on the observations
made by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (in short,
'LLMC')/4th respondent. The entire decision making
process leading to Ext.P5 is erroneous and liable to be
quashed. 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, his
property is a converted land since 1990. He has
constructed compound walls and has been doing
cultivation in the said property. It is without looking into
any of these aspects that the 3rd respondent has rejected
Ext.P4 application.
WP(C) NO. 41592 OF 2024
2025:KER:36331
5. In a plethora 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 (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. 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 said
procedure is not contemplated under the Rules. The Rules
only provide to call for a report from the Agricultural
Officer or getting a scientific report from the Kerala State
Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC).
WP(C) NO. 41592 OF 2024
2025:KER:36331
7. A reading of Ext.P5 order would substantiate
that the 3rd respondent has not inspected the property or
called for the satellite images, instead, he has solely relied
on the report of the 5th respondent, who in turn has relied
on the observations of the 4th respondent that the
petitioner's property cannot be removed from the data
bank. There is no independent finding regarding the
nature or character of the petitioner's property as on the
crucial date, i.e., on 12.08.2008 or ascertained whether
the property is suitable for paddy cultivation. The entire
decision making process leading to Ext.P5 order is vitiated
and erroneous. Hence, I am convinced that Ext.P5 order is
liable to be quashed and the Authorised Officer be
directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance
with law, after adverting to the principles laid down in the
aforecited decisions and the materials available on record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P5 order is quashed.
(ii). The 3rd respondent/Authorised Officer is directed
WP(C) NO. 41592 OF 2024
2025:KER:36331
to reconsider Ext.P4 application in accordance
with law. In case the Authorised Officer does not
inspect the property directly, he shall call for the
satellite images as envisaged under the Rules. In
case he decides to call for satellite images, he
shall direct the petitioner to remit the prescribed
fee on the date of production of a copy of this
judgment. Thereafter, the Authorised Officer shall
consider the application, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within three months from
the date of receipt of the satellite images from
the KSREC.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/26.05.25
WP(C) NO. 41592 OF 2024
2025:KER:36331
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41592/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.2824/2006 DATED 21/6/2006 OF
THRIPPUNITHURA SRO
Exhibit P2 . TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
7/6/2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THEKKUMBHAGAM
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
DATA BANK OF THEKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE OF
THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY DATED NIL
PUBLISHED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF
PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008
Exhibit P4 . TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 26/8/2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
23/10/2024 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
