Kerala High Court
Umakanth K vs The District Collector on 10 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:75396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 18TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27943 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
UMAKANTH K
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O KUNJIRAMAN, 76/35, NEWBOAG ROAD
THIYAGARA NAGAR, CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600017
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.KRISHNA RAJA MAULI
SMT.MINI.K.NAIR
SHRI.GENTLE C.D.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION P.O
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
VADAKARA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
OPP. GOVT PWD REST HOUSE, OLD BUS STAND,
PUTHIYAPPU, VADAKARA KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673101
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (DM)
CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION P.O
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
THIKKODI COCONUT NURSERY, THIKKODI
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673529
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
THIKKODI VILLAGE OFFICE,
WP(C) NO. 27943 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:75396
THIKKODI PANCHAYATH BAZAR BEACH ROAD,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673529
6 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 27943 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:75396
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
3.64 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 88/39 in
Thikkodi Village, Koyilandy Taluk covered under Ext.
P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted plot
and 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 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
relying on satellite imagery, as specifically mandated
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the order
2025:KER:75396
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 legally
unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits
that, the applied property is a part of padashekharam
land. Therefore, there is no error in Ext. P4 order.
4. The principal contention of the petitioner is
that the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field
but a converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
5. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v.
2025:KER:75396
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,
Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the competent
authority 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 merits
exclusion from the data bank.
6. 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 directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer, that the impugned order has been
passed. The authorised officer has not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature and character
2025:KER:75396
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 aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext. P4 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent /authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form 5 application in
accordance with law. The authorised officer shall either
conduct a personal inspection of the property or,
2025:KER:75396
alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in accordance
with 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 personally inspect the
property, the application shall be considered and
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
mtk/10.10.25
2025:KER:75396
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27943/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL11020302032/2024 DATED 08.04.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DATED ON
28.04.2024
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE
PUBLISHED DATA BANK OF THIKKODI GRAMA
PANCHAYATH
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT 9.12.2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
DATED ON 28.04.2023
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONERS PROPERTY
