Kerala High Court
Vasanthakumari R vs The District Collector on 9 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 27149 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:74721
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. 27149 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
VASANTHAKUMARI R
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O. RAVEENDRAN (LATE), PARAKKALAM HOUSE,
HARITHA NAGAR, GGHSS ROAD, NENMARA P.O., PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678508
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PALAKKAD REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARAKKUNNAM,
VIDYUT NAGAR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
4 THE TAHSILDAR
CHITTUR TALUK OFFICE, CHITTUR - GOPALAMPURAM ROAD,
CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678101
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
NENMARAA VILLAGE OFFICE, NENMARA, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678508
WP(C) NO. 27149 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:74721
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
NENMARA KRISHI BHAVAN, KRISHNAPURAM, NENMARA,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678508
7 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 27149 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:74721
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 09th day of October, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 27.72
Ares of land in Nenmara Village, Chittoor Taluk, covered
under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. Out of the above extent of
land, 12.53 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.100/6-4
was erroneously included as paddy land 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.P2 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 as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any
2025:KER:74721
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 Senior 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 Officer/Sub Collector,
2025:KER:74721
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 report of the Agricultural Officer,
who in turn has relied on the recommendations 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 the above findings, I hold that the
2025:KER:74721
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 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 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
2025:KER:74721
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
NAB
2025:KER:74721
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27149/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
20.06.2024
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
11.09.2024
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2025
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
