Kerala High Court
Joseph Selfi vs The District Collector on 8 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:74200
WP(C) NO. 25492 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. 25492 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JOSEPH SELFI
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. CHAANDI, AZHIKKAKATH HOUSE, VIRAJPET PO, GANDHI
NAGAR, KOORG DISTRICT, KARNATAKA, PIN - 571218
BY ADV SMT. ARYA ASHOKAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GROUND
FLOOR, PATTIMATTOM, MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 686673
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR)
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL. STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKUL.AM,
PIN - 682030
4 THE TAHASILDAR
KUNNATHUNAD TALUK OFFICE, POOPPNI ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683543
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KUNNATHUNAD VILLAGE OFFICE, KUMARAPURAM, PALLIKKARA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683565
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KUNNATHUNAD KRISHI BHAVAN, KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKULAM,
2025:KER:74200
WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025
2
PIN - 683542
7 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74200
WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.36
Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 388/3-9, 388/4-9
and 388/5-5 of Kunnathunad Village, Kunnathunad
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
petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application in Form 5,
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P4 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:74200
WP(C) NO. 25492 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
[2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional
2025:KER:74200
WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025
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.P4 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,
who in turn has relied on the recommendation of the Local
Level Monitoring Committee. 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
2025:KER:74200
WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025
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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd 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
authorised officer opts to inspect the property personally,
2025:KER:74200
WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025
the application shall be disposed of within two months from
the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the
petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/8/10/2025
2025:KER:74200
WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25492/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
21.2.2022
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
23.4.2022
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 14.2.2023
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.2.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KSREC DATED
28.6.2018
Exhibit P-6 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
