Kerala High Court
Bindu V vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:74328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4395 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 BINDU V.,
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O. VISWAMBHARAN CHEMBALA,
VADAKKATH HOUSE, THRIKKAVU, PONNANI,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 679577
2 VISWAMBHARAN CHEMBALA,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. SREEKUMARAN NAIR P,
VADAKKATH HOUSE, THRIKKAVU, PONNANI,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 679577
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RASSAL JANARDHANAN A.
SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER
SHRI. GOVIND G. NAIR
SHRI.SHINTO MATHEW ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
RDO UNDER SECTION 2(XVA) OF KERALA CONSERVATION OF
PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT,
CIVIL STATION, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR THAVANUR
GRAMA PANCHAYAT (CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA
WP(C) NO.4395 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:74328
CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT, 2008)
,REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AND AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THAVANUR,
THAVANUR P.O., PONNANI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679573
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, THAVANUR, THAVANUR P.O.,
PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679573
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THAVANUR VILLAGE OFFICE, THAVANUR P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679573
6 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS
BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.4395 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:74328
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the husband and wife. They
are in possession of 18.16 Ares of land comprised in
Survey Nos. 421/2-22 and 421/2-23 Thavannur Village,
Ponnani Taluk covered under Ext. P1 and P2 land tax
receipts. The properties are converted plot and
unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the
respondents have erroneously classified the properties
as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank
maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land
and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules framed thereunder
('Act' and 'Rules", for brevity). To exclude the properties
from the data bank, the petitioners had submitted Exts.
P4 and P5 applications in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the
Rules. However, by Exts. P6 and P7 orders, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the
applications without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery, as
2025:KER:74328
specifically mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
Furthermore, the orders are 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 orders, therefore, are arbitrary and
legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioners is that
the subject properties are not a cultivable paddy field but
a converted plot. Nonetheless, the properties have been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
2025:KER:74328
Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the competent
authority 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 merits
exclusion from the data bank.
5. A reading of Exts. P6 and P7 orders reveal that
the authorised officer has failed to comply with the
statutory requirements. There is no indication in the
orders that the authorised officer has directly inspected
the properties or called for the satellite pictures as
mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based
on the report of the Agricultural Officer, that the
impugned orders have been passed. 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
2025:KER:74328
exclusion of the properties would prejudicially affect the
surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above findings, I
hold that the impugned orders were passed in
contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid
down by this Court. Thus, the impugned orders are
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 Form 5
application as per the procedure prescribed under the
law.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Exts. P6 and P7 orders are quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Exts. P6 and P7 orders in
accordance with law. The authorised officer shall either
conduct a personal inspection of the properties or,
alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in accordance
2025:KER:74328
with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the
petitioners.
iii. If satellite pictures are called for, the
applications shall be disposed of within three months
from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other
hand, if the authorised officer opts to personally inspect
the properties, the applications shall be considered and
disposed of within two months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/08.10.25
2025:KER:74328
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4395/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL10030916192/2022 DATED 22/12/2022
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT
OF THE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL10030916179/2022 DATED 21/12/2022
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT
OF THE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
02/09/2014 IN WP(C) 23146/2014
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO.
110/2022/921539 DATED 22/12/2022
SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE
PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO.
92/2022/472196 DATED 21/12/2022 SUBMITTED
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.304/2024
DATED 19/10/2024 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.421/2024
DATED 31/10/2024 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
