Kerala High Court
M.T.Thankachan vs State Of Kerala on 27 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:36430
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. 38648 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
M.T.THANKACHAN,
AGED 57 YEARS
SON OF THOMAS,MARIPURATH HOUSE,
KALLINGALPADAM P.O, PANNIYANKARA,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678683
BY ADV PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT COLLECTORATE,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD,
KERALA, PIN - 678013
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD,
OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL, PARAKKUNNAM,
VIDYUT NAGAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 678001
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
OFFICE OF LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
KANNAMBRA-1, REPRESENTED BY CONVENOR / AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, KANNAMBRA-1,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 678687
5 VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNAMPRA VILLAGE-1,
KANNAMBRA VILLAGE OFFICE, MANNATHUPARAMBU,
KANNAMBRA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 678686
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.38648 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:36430
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order
to the extent of partially rejecting Ext. P2 application
(Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008
('Rules' in short) and direct the third respondent to
refund Rs. 43,362/-, which was illegally collected from
the petitioner while allowing his Form-6 application.
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of
25.59 Ares of land covered by Ext. P1 basic tax receipt.
The petitioner's land is lying contiguously and is
bounded by compound walls. Out of the said property,
01.10 Ares of land is classified as 'purayidam', and the
balance 24.49 Ares of property is classified as 'Nilam'
in the basic tax register and included in the data bank.
The petitioner converted the entire land as purayidam
in 2002 and 2003. As the property has been
erroneously classified as 'Nilam' in the data bank, the
2025:KER:36430
petitioner had submitted Ext. P2 application before the
third respondent. By Ext. P4 proceedings, the third
respondent partially allowed the application by
ordering the removal of 0.0657 hectares in Survey No.
231/21 from the data bank, but declined the removal of
0.2449 hectares. Pursuant to the direction of the third
respondent in Ext. P5 proceedings, the petitioner
submitted a Form-6 application and remitted Rs.
43,362/- towards the conversion fee. Ext. P4 order, to
the extent of partially rejecting the petitioner's
application, and Ext. P5 order, directing the petitioner
to remit the conversion fee, are illegal and arbitrary.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. The third respondent has filed a statement,
inter alia, stating that the petitioner has a title over an
extent of 0.2559 hectares of land in Kannambra-1
Village, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad District. As per the
village records, only the property comprised in Survey
No. 231/8 is 'purayidam' and the rest of the property is
2025:KER:36430
'Nilam'. Based on Ext. P2 application submitted by the
petitioner, the third respondent had removed 0.0657
hectares of land from the data bank as per Ext. P4
order. The remaining land cannot be excluded from the
data bank as it is paddy land. Again, as per the Form-6
application submitted by the petitioner, Ext. P5 order
was passed. It is true that the petitioner constructed a
residential building in a certain extent of land. The
Agricultural Officer has reported that the entire
exclusion of the petitioner's property cannot be done,
as it would affect the agricultural operation. Exts. P4
and P5 have been passed in accordance with law.
Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The petitioner's case is that, his property was
converted as 'purayidam' in the years 2002-2003. He has
constructed a residential building in the said property. It
is without any application of mind that the third
2025:KER:36430
respondent partially rejected Ext. P2 application by Ext.
P4 order, and has erroneously directed the petitioner to
remit the conversion fee for the property having an
extent of less than 25 cents.
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
Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021
(1) KLT 433)).
7. This Court, in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue
Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda, (2023 (6) KHC 83),
2025:KER:36430
has held that the prime consideration to retain a
property in the data bank is to ascertain whether paddy
cultivation is possible in the land.
8. A reading of Ext.P4 order would substantiate that
the third 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; the removal of the entire petitioner's
property from the data bank would adversely affect the
paddy cultivation. The third respondent has also not
directly inspected the property or called for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. It is
only based on the report of the Agricultural Officer, that
the impugned Ext. P4 order has been passed. Hence, I
am satisfied that Exts. P4 and P5 orders have to be set
aside and the third respondent/authorised officer be
directed to reconsider the entire matter afresh, in
accordance with law, after adverting to the principles of
law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and the
2025:KER:36430
materials available on record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i) The third respondent/authorised officer
is directed to reconsider Ext. P2 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 envisaged under Rule 4(4f), at the
expense of the petitioner.
(ii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images of the property, he shall
consider Ext. P2 application, in accordance with
law and as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within three months from the date of the
receipt of the satellite images. In case the
authorised officer directly inspects the
property, he shall dispose of the Ext. P2 within
two months from the date of production of a
2025:KER:36430
copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/27.05.25
2025:KER:36430
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38648/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT SHOWING
PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX FOR THE YEAR
2024-2025 DATED 19/07/2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD DATED 12.10.2002
Exhibit P3 Series THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE NATURE OF
PETITIONER'S 24.49 ARES OF PROPERTY
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, PALAKKAD BEARING NO. 2549/2023
DATED 27/03/2023
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD BEARING NO.6593/2023 DATED
22.09.2023
