Kerala High Court
Joseph M P vs The District Collector on 10 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:75389
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. 27824 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 JOSEPH M P
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. PAULOSE, M1 MUTTATH HOUSE, ANJOOR,
VADEKKEKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680520
2 SNEHA VINCENT V
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O. JOSEPH M P, M1 MUTTATH HOUSE, ANJOOR,
VADEKKEKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680520
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.KRISHNA RAJA MAULI
SMT.MINI.K.NAIR
SHRI.GENTLE C.D.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL LINES ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR,
AYYANTHOLE, TRICHUR, PIN - 680003
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
IRINJALAKUDA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, IRINJALAKUDA,
TRICHUR, PIN - 680125
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR)
CIVIL LINES ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR,
AYYANTHOLE, TRICHUR, PIN - 680003
4 THE TAHASILDAR (LR)
WP(C) NO. 27824 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:75389
KUNNAMKULAM TALUK OFFICE,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680503
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ANJUR VILLAGE OFFICE ANJUR MUNDUR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680541
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, CHITTANJUR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680523
7 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, REP ITS CONVENER,
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
CHITTANJUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680523
8 THE DIRECTOR
8. THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V.,
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. 27824 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:75389
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession
of 3.4 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 245/3-1 in
Anjoor Village, Kunnamkulam 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 '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.P5
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected
the application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery,
2025:KER:75389
as specifically 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 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],
2025:KER:75389
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.
5. A reading of Ext.P5 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 based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer, who in turn has relied on the
recommendations of the Local Level Monitoring
Committee, that the impugned order has been passed.
2025:KER:75389
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 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.P5 order is quashed.
ii. The third respondent /authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext. P3 application in accordance
2025:KER:75389
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.
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/10.10.25
2025:KER:75389
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27824/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL0870302361/1/2023 DATED 14.06.2023
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE
PUBLISHED DATA BANK OF KUNNAMKULAM
MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 14.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
03.10.2024 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
11.06.2023 BEARING FILE NO. 2347/2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIOINERS PROPERTY
