Kerala High Court
Anjali K R vs Government Of Kerala on 8 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:74199
WP(C) NO. 25825 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. 25825 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANJALI K R
AGED 33 YEARS
D O. RAGHAVAN K.N RESIDING AT SIVASAKTHI HOUSE,
ETTUMANOOR P. O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD
SHRI.ASHOK K.V.
SMT.DEVIKA J.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
SUB COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION COMPLEX, KOTTAYAM, PIN
- 686002
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686631
SR.GP SMT. PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74199
WP(C) NO. 25825 OF 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
3.15 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.164/7-1 in
Block No.31 of Perur Village, Kottayam Taluk, covered
under Ext.P1 settlement deed. The property is a
converted land and is unsuitable for paddy cultivation.
Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously
classified the property as ' wetland' 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
2025:KER:74199
WP(C) NO. 25825 OF 2025
pictures 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],
2025:KER:74199
WP(C) NO. 25825 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.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 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
2025:KER:74199
WP(C) NO. 25825 OF 2025
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.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.
2025:KER:74199
WP(C) NO. 25825 OF 2025
(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 petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/8/10/2025
2025:KER:74199
WP(C) NO. 25825 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25825/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
2600/ 2022 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE,
ETTUMANOOR DATED 13.10.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER UNDER FORM 5 UNDER RULE 4
D, DATED 08.05.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ON THE
APPLICATION FILED IN FORM 5 DATED
17.11.2023
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DATED
16.10.2024 IN PROCEEDINGS NO. 1644/ 2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 19.02.2025 ISSUED FOR PRODUCING
BEFORE THE RDO KOTTAYAM, NUMBER 91609301
DATED 19.02.2025
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE
NATURE OF THE PLOT OF THE PETITIONER WITH
TEAK TREES
Exhibit P6 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE
NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORING PLOT WITH
RESIDENTIAL TWO STORIED BUILDING
Exhibit P6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOW THE ROAD
IN A STRAIGHT-LINE BY THE MIDDLE PORTION
THE PATTITHANAM - MANARCADU BY-PASS TO
THE MC ROAD HIGH WAY
