Koshy Kunju T vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 9512 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9512 Ker
Judgement Date : 9 October, 2025

Kerala High Court

Koshy Kunju T vs State Of Kerala on 9 October, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                      2025:KER:74676
WP(C) NO. 29084 OF 2025

                                  1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

  THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 17TH ASWINA, 1947

                      WP(C) NO. 29084 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

          KOSHY KUNJU T.
          AGED 63 YEARS
          S/O Y. THOMAS, THEKKETHIL JAISE VILLA, KARAVALOOR
          P.O., KARAVALOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691318


          BY ADVS.
          SHRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
          SMT.JOLIMA GEORGE
          SMT.C.B.SABEELA
          SMT.APARNA G.
          SHRI.AIVIN ALEX PHILIP
          SMT.SHYLAKUMARI C.C.




RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
          GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KAANKATHU MUKKU,
          KOLLAM, PIN - 691013

    3     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
          REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN -
          691331
                                                              2025:KER:74676
WP(C) NO. 29084 OF 2025

                                      2


     4       THE TAHSILDAR
             PUNALUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, PUNALUR, PIN - 691305

     5       THE VILLAGE OFFICER
             ANCHAL VILLAGE OFFICE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN
             - 691306

     6       THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AND CONVENOR
             LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, KRISHIBHAVAN,
             ANCHAL, ANCHAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306

     7       THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
             CENTRE (KSREC)
             1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
             PIN - 695033

             GP.SMT.DEEPA V.
             SC- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   09.10.2025,   THE   COURT   ON       THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                      2025:KER:74676
WP(C) NO. 29084 OF 2025

                                   3


                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of October, 2025

The petitioner is the co-owner in possession of

19.20 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.59/10 in

Block No.33 of Anchal Village, Punalur Taluk, covered

under Ext.P2 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.P8 application in Form

5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P9

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:74676 WP(C) NO. 29084 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], 2025:KER:74676 WP(C) NO. 29084 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.P9 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 2025:KER:74676 WP(C) NO. 29084 OF 2025

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.P9 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:74676 WP(C) NO. 29084 OF 2025

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,

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/9/10/2025 2025:KER:74676 WP(C) NO. 29084 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29084/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED VIDE NO.

3907/2010/1 DATED 02.12.2010 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT VIDE NO.KL02060209200/2023 DATED 11.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 05.01.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT VIDE NO.A-

172/2015/KSREC/003358/21 DATED 17.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT HELD ON 16.05.2022 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.10.2023 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.1412/2024 DATED 14.06.2025 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT