Kerala High Court
Sajeev A.S vs State Of Kerala on 9 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 27196 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:74722
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. 27196 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SAJEEV A.S.
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O BALAN, CHITILAPILLY HOUSE, PENTA GARDEN, CHURCH
ROAD, PUTHUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680014
BY ADV SRI.V.AJITH NARAYANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR., PIN - 680003
3 THE SUB COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR., PIN - 680003
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
PUTHUR GRAMAPANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, PUTHUR P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680014
5 THE THAHASILDAR
THALUK OFFICE, OPP THRISSUR TOWN HALL, CHEMBUKKAV,
THRISSUR., PIN - 680020
6 THE SECRETARY
PUTHUR GRAMAPANCHAYATH, PUTHUR P.O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT., PIN - 680014
BY ADV SHRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
SMT.DEEPA V, 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. 27196 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:74722
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 09th day of October, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.25
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.208 in Kainoor
Village, Thrissur Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 and P2 sale
deeds. 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 an 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 as mandated under Rule
2025:KER:74722
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
2025:KER:74722
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,
who in turn has relied on the recommendation of the Local
Level Monitoring Committe. 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:74722
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 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 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
2025:KER:74722
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:74722
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27196/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2532/2012
DATED 28/06/2012
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2581/2009
DATED 09/09/2009
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT WITH NO. 5957/2023 DATED
13/12/2023
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
12.7.2025 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS
