Kerala High Court
A.J. Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 8292 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:73438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 8292 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
A.J. THOMAS,
AGED 65 YEARS
AYYARUKULANGARA HOUSE, PUZHAVATHU, CHANGANASSERY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686101
BY ADV SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER(SUB-COLLECTOR),
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
4 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
OFFICE OF DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686002
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, PAIPPADU, NALUKODI .P.O.,, PIN -
686545
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 8292 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:73438
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 8292 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8.70
Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.13/2-3 in Block
No.6 of Changanassery Village, Changanassery Taluk,
covered under Ext.P2 building tax receipt issued by the
Panchayat. The respondents had erroneously classified
the land as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank
prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land
and Wetland Act, 2008, and the Rules framed thereunder
('Act' and 'Rules', for brevity). To exclude the property
from the data bank, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7
application in Form 5. Even though the Agricultural
Officer/ 5th respondent had recommended the petitioner's
property to be excluded from the data bank and Ext.P8
report was received from the Kerala State Remote
Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC), wherein it is
WP(C) NO. 8292 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:73438
specifically stated that the property is bordered by a
road on the South side and observed under mixed
vegetation/plantation in the data of 2008, the authorisied
officer has summarily rejected the application without
any application of mind. Ext.P10 order is devoid of any
independent finding regarding the nature and character
of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008 -- the date the Act
came into force. The impugned order, therefore, is
arbitrary and unsustainable in law and liable to be
quashed.
2. In the statement filed by the 4th respondent,
it is contended that, the Agricultural Officer reported that
there are no trees present in the property. A temporary
sheet-roofed structure is found on the property.
Additionally, there are low-lying areas near the property.
The land has characteristics of the homestead plot and its
conversion took place before 2008. Even if the land is
converted, it would not affect the water flow and other
agricultural activities or the environment. Therefore, the
WP(C) NO. 8292 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:73438
land can be exempted from the data bank. However, on
verification of the KSREC report and further inspection it
was found that the property was converted after 2008.
Based on the verification of the geo-tagged photographs as
per the KSREC report, the application was rejected.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's principal contention is that
the applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the
Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected the
same without proper consideration or application of mind.
5. It is now well-settled by a catena of
judgments of this Court -- including the decisions 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,
WP(C) NO. 8292 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:73438
Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the authorised
officer is obliged to assess the nature, lie and character of
the land and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on
12.08.2008, which are the decisive criteria to determine
whether the property is to be excluded from the data bank.
6. A reading of Ext.P10 order and the statement filed
by the 4th respondent reveals that the Agricultural Officer
had recommended the property to be excluded from the
data bank. Similarly, Local Level Monitoring Committee
(LLMC) had also recommended the property to be excluded
from the data bank as evidenced by Ext.P1 report. Although
the authorised officer was convinced of the said reports,
the authorised officer has rejected the application based on
Ext.P8 KSREC report. A reading of Ext.P8 report
undoubtedly reveals that the plot is bordered by a road on
the south side and was observed under
vegetation/plantation in the data of 2008. The said land
pattern was continued in the data of 2010 and 2011. The
data of 2022 shows that the plot is covered under exposed
WP(C) NO. 8292 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:73438
soil with buildings/structures towards the east side. It is
based on the above observation that, the authorised officer
has rejected the Form 5 application. The authorised officer
has not rendered any independent finding regarding the
nature and character of the land as on the relevant date.
There is also no finding whether the exclusion of the
property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy
fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that the Ext.P10
order was passed in contravention of the statutory mandate
and the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the Ext.P10
order is vitiated due to errors of law and non-application of
mind, and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the
authorised officer is to be directed to reconsider the Ext.P7
application as per the procedure prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P10 order is quashed.
(ii) The 4th respondent/ authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Ext.P7 application, in accordance with
WP(C) NO. 8292 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:73438
the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of
the property or by relying on Ext.P8 KSREC report and
Ext.P9 report of the 5th respondent. The above exercise
shall be completed within 90 days from the date of
production of a copy of the judgment.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SCB.06.10.25.
WP(C) NO. 8292 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:73438
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8292/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
22.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
PAIPPAD GRAMAPANCHAYATH ON 11.7.2014
Exhibit.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION DATED 15.7.2015 ISSUED BY THE
DISTRICT GEOLOGIST
Exhibit.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEALERS LICENSE DATED
3.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST
Exhibit.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENSE DATED
8.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE PAIPPAD
GRAMAPANCHAYATH
Exhibit.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENSE DATED
18.4.2023 ISSUED BY THE PAIPPAD
GRAMAPANCHAYATH
Exhibit.P7 . TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.2.2023
Exhibit.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE KSRSEC REPORT DATED
9.7.2024
Exhibit.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA REPORT DATED NIL
SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT OBTAINED
UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
Exhibit.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2024 OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT
