Kerala High Court

Mani K vs The District Collector Palakkad on 27 May, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                      2025:KER:36393

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
        TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1947
                       WP(C) NO. 18051 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

            MANI K
            AGED 55 YEARS
            S/O.KUNCHAN, PADINJARE VETTUKAD,
            MANJALUR, KUZHALMANNAM-I VILLAGE,
            ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678502


            BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
            PALAKKAD COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION
            PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

    2       .REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
            COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
            PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

    3       THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A),
            R.D.O,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A),
            CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

    4       THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
            OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
            CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

    5       THE THAHSILDAR (L.R)
            ALATHUR TALUK OFFICE,ALATHUR,
            PALAKKAD, PIN - 678541

    6       THE VILLAGE OFFICER
            KUZHALMANNAM-I VILLAGE, KUZHALMANNAM.P.O,
            ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678502

    7       .THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
            COYALMANNAM, KUZHALMANNAM.P.O, ALATHUR,
            PALAKKAD, PIN - 678502
 WP(C) NO. 18051 OF 2025          2

                                                   2025:KER:36393

    8     LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
          KUZHALMANNAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUZHALMANNAM.P.O,
          ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD,REP.BY ITS CONVENER., PIN -
          678502

    9     THE DIRECTOR
          KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING & ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
          C' BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695033


OTHER PRESENT:

          SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18051 OF 2025        3

                                              2025:KER:36393



                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of May, 2025

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order

and direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext. P7

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

0.1103 hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.

418/32 in Block No. 16 of Kuzhalmannam-1 Village,

Alathur Taluk, Palakkad District, covered by Ext. P1

title deeds and Ext. P2 possession certificate. The

petitioner's property is a dry land. However, the

respondents have erroneously classified the

petitioner's property as paddy land and included it in

the data bank. The petitioner's predecessor in interest

had filed a Form-5 application under Rule 4(d) of the

Rules to remove the property from the data bank. By

2025:KER:36393

Ext. P6 order, the second respondent had rejected the

said application on the ground that there is no material

to prove that the property was converted prior to 2008

and removal of the property from the data bank would

adversely affect the paddy cultivation. Nonetheless, it

is observed that the property is presently a 'fallow

land'. After purchasing the property, the petitioner

without knowing the passing of Ext. P6 order,

submitted Ext.P7. The said application was returned to

the petitioner on the ground that Ext. P6 order has

already been passed. Ext. P6 is passed without any

application of mind. Therefore, Ext. P6 order may be

quashed and the authorised officer be directed to

reconsider the matter afresh. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that,

there is a specific finding in Ext. P6 order that the

petitioner's property is fit for paddy cultivation.

2025:KER:36393

Therefore, there is no error in Ext. P6 order.

5. The petitioner's case is that, his property was

converted long prior to the commencement of the Act in

2008. The second respondent has passed Ext. P6 order

without following the procedure envisaged under the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,

2008 ('Act' for short) and the Rules framed thereunder.

Hence, Ext. P6 order is liable to be quashed.

6. 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

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

2025:KER:36393

Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021

(1) KLT 433)).

7. 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.

8. Ext.P6 order substantiates that the second

respondent has not rendered any independent finding

regarding the nature and character of the petitioner's

property as on the crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008; he has

also not directly inspected the property or called for

satellite images from the 9th respondent as envisaged

under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Therefore, I hold that

there has been total non-application of the mind in

passing Ext.P6 order. Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P6

2025:KER:36393

order is liable to be quashed and the second

respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider

the matter afresh, in accordance 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.P6 order is quashed.

(ii) The second respondent/authorised officer

is directed to reconsider Ext. P7 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 Ext. P7 application, in

accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at

2025:KER:36393

any rate, within three months from the date of the

receipt of the satellite images. In case the authorised

officer desires to directly inspect the property, he shall

dispose of the Ext. P7 within two months from the date of

production of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/27.05.25

2025:KER:36393

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18051/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1272/I/24 OF S.R.O, KUZHALMANNAM

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 02.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY

EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN FILE NO.6230/2023 DATED 03.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT