Kerala High Court
T. P. Rajagopalan vs The District Collector on 30 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:37632
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40276 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
T. P. RAJAGOPALAN,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. KUTTIRAMAN, THOZHUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KOONATHARA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 679523
BY ADV SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OTTAPPALAM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,OTTAPALAM,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679101
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
OTTAPALAM TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN -
679101
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VANIYAMKULAM-I VILLAGE OFFICE, VANIYAMKULAM,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679522
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
VANIYAMKULAM KRISHI BHAVAN,VANIYAMKULAM, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 679522
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
2025:KER:37738
WP(C) NO. 40276 OF 2024 2
695033
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:37738
WP(C) NO. 40276 OF 2024 3
C.S. DIAS, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.40276 of 2024
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 order
and direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P2
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 of the 1 hectare
and 43.45 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.41/9-1
of Vaniyamkulam-I Village, Ottappalam Taluk,
Palakkad District, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt.
Out of the said property, 33.10 Ares is classified as
'Nanja' in the revenue records and included in the data
bank. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has
submitted Ext.P2 application to exclude the property
from the data bank. The 2nd respondent, by solely
2025:KER:37738
relying on the observations of the Local Level
Monitoring Committee (LLMC) has perfunctorily
rejected Ext.P2 application without any application of
mind. Ext.P3 order is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the
writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement,
inter alia, stating that, in the LLMC meeting held on
07.10.2020, it was recommended to reject the
petitioner's application, since the property is lying as
barren land and is suitable for paddy cultivation. The
property was not converted prior to 2008. If the is
property is removed from the data bank, it would
adversely affect the paddy cultivation and free flow of
water. Therefore, the application is only to be rejected.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The petitioner's specific case is that, his
property is a garden land and is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. The respondents have erroneously
2025:KER:37738
classified the property as 'Nanja' and included it in the
data bank.
6. 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)).
7. A reading of Ext.P3 order would substantiate
that the 2nd respondent has not independently evaluted
the nature and classification of the petitioner's
property. Instead, the 2nd respondent has solely based
2025:KER:37738
on the observations made by the LLMC, has come to
the impugned conclusion.
8. 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).
9. As the 2nd respondent has reached his findings on
and the basis of the LLMC report, and has not directly
inspected the property or called for the satellite images
as envisaged under 4(4f) of the Rules, I am satisfied that
Ext.P3 order is to be quashed and the 2 nd
respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider
Ext.P2 application, in accordance with law, after
adverting to the principles of law laid down in the
2025:KER:37738
aforesaid decisions and the materials available on
record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii). The 5th respondent is directed to submit his
report within one month from the date of production of a
copy of the judgment before the authorised officer. The
authorised shall immediately on receipt of the report
from the 5th respondent, 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 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. 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. However, if he directly
2025:KER:37738
inspects the property, 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
SCB.30.05.25.
2025:KER:37738
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40276/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
05.06.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
27.07.2020
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2720/2021-G2
DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 20.09.2024
EVIDENCING THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
UNDER RTI ACT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED
05.01.2023
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
2025:KER:37738
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40276/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
05.06.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
27.07.2020
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2720/2021-G2
DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 20.09.2024
EVIDENCING THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
UNDER RTI ACT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED
05.01.2023
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
