Kerala High Court
K K Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:74189
WP(C) NO. 25748 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. 25748 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 K K THOMAS
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O KURAIKOSE, KAVALATHU HOUSE, MARANGADU, PIZHAKU
P.O RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686651
2 BENNY SEBASTIAN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O SEBASTIAN , KAVALATHU HOUSE, MARANGADU, PIZHAKU
P.O RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686651
3 TOMY THOMAS
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O THOMAS , KAVALATHU HOUSE, MARANGADU, PIZHAKU P.O
RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686651
4 SHIBY CHERIAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O CHERIAN, KAVALATHU HOUSE, MARANGADU, PIZHAKU P.O
RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686651
5 JOSE JOSEPH
AGED 75 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH , KAVALATHU HOUSE, MARANGADU, PIZHAKU P.O
RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686651
BY ADVS.
SRI.LEEJOY MATHEW.V.
SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA
SMT.SINDHU MATHEW
SHRI.SIMSAR UL HAQ K.Y
SMT.ATHIRA C.K.
2025:KER:74189
WP(C) NO. 25748 OF 2025
2
SHRI.ALDIN JOSE M.J.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
(REVENUE), GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM
COLLECTORATE BUILDING KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
3 THE RDO, PALA
MINI CIVIL STATION, PALA BYPASS RD, PALA, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686575
4 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, KADANAD ANTHINAD P O, RAMAPURAM
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686651
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PALA RAMAPURAM RD, EZHACHERRY, VELLILAPPALLY,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686576
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:74189
WP(C) NO. 25748 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession
of 36.35 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos. 21/1,
21/1-1 and 21/1B in Block No.22 of Vellillappaly Village,
Meenachil Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt.
The property is a converted land and is unsuitable for
paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have
erroneously classified the property 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 property from the data bank, the
petitioners had submitted an application in Form 5
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3 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:74189
WP(C) NO. 25748 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 petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' 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],
2025:KER:74189
WP(C) NO. 25748 OF 2025
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad
[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.P3 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 reports of the Village Officer and
the Agricultural Officer, who in turn has relied on the
recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring Committee.
The authorised officer has not rendered any independent
2025:KER:74189
WP(C) NO. 25748 OF 2025
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 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.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 3rd 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
2025:KER:74189
WP(C) NO. 25748 OF 2025
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the
petitioners.
(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
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 petitioners.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/8/10/2025
2025:KER:74189
WP(C) NO. 25748 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25748/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
9.6.2023
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES FROM THE
DATA BANK CONCERNING THE PROPERTIES IN
BLOCK NO. 22 OF VELLILLAPPALY VILLAGE,
ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURE OFFICE
Exhibit P 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT RDO VIDE FILE NO. 3372/2023
DATED 15/7/2023
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF KSREC VIDE
NO. A 172/2015/KSREC/04442/24 DATED
13.05.2024
