Kerala High Court
Rajan Parathatta vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:75330
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. 14786 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
1 RAJAN PARATHATTA,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O KUNHIRAMAN, NO OCCUPATION,
RESIDING AT 'PULARI', KOLATHUVAYAL,
SOCIETY ROAD, P.O.ANCHAM PEEDIKA,
KANNUR -, PIN - 670331
2 KOVVAMMAL NISHI,
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O RAJAN PARATHATTA, NO OCCUPATION,
RESIDING AT 'PULARI', KOLATHUVAYAL,
SOCIETY ROAD, P.O.ANCHAM PEEDIKA,
KANNUR, PIN - 670331
BY ADV SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, P.O KANNUR,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHEMBILODE P.O.CHEMBILODE,
KANNUR, PIN - 670307
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVINOR,
WP(C) NO. 14786 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:75330
KALLIASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
PO KALLIASSERY, KANNUR, PIN - 670562
5 ADDL.R5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE
TALIPARAMBA, 29P6+X32 REVENUE TOWER,
COURT RD, TALIPARAMBA, KERALA 670 141.
[ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
07.08.2025 IN I.A.NO.2/2025 IN WP(C)14786/2024].
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V
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. 14786 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:75330
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession
of 0.0587 hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.
104 in Kallyasseri Village, Kannur Taluk, covered
under Ext. P2 land tax receipt. The property is a
converted plot and 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 petitioners had submitted Ext. P3 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
2025:KER:75330
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 legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioners 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.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including 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
2025:KER:75330
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.
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 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
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
2025:KER:75330
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 additional fifth respondent/authorised officer
is directed to reconsider Ext. P3 application in
accordance with law. The authorised officer shall either
conduct a personal inspection of the property or,
alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in accordance
with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the
petitioners.
2025:KER:75330
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 petitioners.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/10.10.25l
2025:KER:75330
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14786/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGD. SALE DEED NO. 1610
OF 2006, S.R.O., KALLYASSERI, KANNUR
DISTRICT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
04-08-2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER,KALLYASSERI VILLAGE.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION DATED
21-10-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-03-2023
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LANDED
PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1 SALE DEED.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 18-03-2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10-04-2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10-05-2023
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
DIRECTOR, KSREC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
