Kerala High Court
Mariakuttyabraham vs Sub Collector/Rdo on 8 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:74202
WP(C) NO. 26028 OF 2025
1
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. 26028 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MARIAKUTTYABRAHAM
AGED 66 YEARS
W/O ABRAHAM K.MATHEW, KALAYITHRA HOUSE, MUNDAPUZHA,
RANNI.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689672
BY ADV SHRI.JAMES KURIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUB COLLECTOR/RDO,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OFFICE, KOTTAYAM., PIN -
686001
2 AGRICULTURE OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN , AYMANAM P.O., AYMANAM, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686015
3 VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, AYMANAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686015
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. JESSY S SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74202
WP(C) NO. 26028 OF 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 6.91
Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.332/4-7,
334/13-6 and 334/13-7 in Ayamanam Village, Kottayam
Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt. Out of the
above extent of land, 2.53 Ares of land has been
erroneously classified 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 said extent of land from the data bank, the
petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application in Form 5,
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P8
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures
2025:KER:74202
WP(C) NO. 26028 OF 2025
as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
Furthermore, the 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. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. 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.
4. 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
2025:KER:74202
WP(C) NO. 26028 OF 2025
[2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional
Officer/Sub Collector, 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.
5. A reading of Ext.P8 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory
requirements. There is no indication in the order that the
authorised officer has personally inspected the property
or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has
merely acted upon the report of the Agricultural Officer
without rendering 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
2025:KER:74202
WP(C) NO. 26028 OF 2025
impugned order was passed in contravention of the
statutory mandate and the law laid down by this Court.
Thus, the impugned 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 Form 5 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.P8 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 application, in accordance with
the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the
property or calling for the satellite pictures as provided
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the
petitioner.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the application
shall be disposed of within three months from the date of
receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the
2025:KER:74202
WP(C) NO. 26028 OF 2025
authorised officer opts to inspect the property personally,
the application shall be disposed of within two months
from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by
the petitioner.
(iv) The petitioner would be at liberty to produce a
copy the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment
before the authorised officer.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/8/10/2025
2025:KER:74202
WP(C) NO. 26028 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26028/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.3514/97 DATED
03.11.1997 OF KOTTAYAM SRO
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
08.11.2024 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE,
AYMANAM
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DRAFT DATA
BANK
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA
BANK PUBLISHED AS EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE
DATED 31.12.2020
ExhibitP5 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11.03.2023
IN FORM NO.5
Exhibit-P6 COPY OF THE PROFORMA REPORT DATED
22.10.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 22.10.2024 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2207/2024 DATED
02.11.2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE SITE PLAN ISSUED BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT DATED.07.12.2024
Exhibit P10 COPY OF ORDER NO.RDO KTM/1802/2021/B3/KDIS
DATED 04.03.2023 PASSED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 COPY OF THE LETTER 24.10.2024 OF THE
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF PWD
(ROADS), KOTTAYAM
