Kerala High Court
Sooppy V vs State Of Kerala on 8 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:66444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 33088 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SOOPPY V.,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O.KUNHAHAMMED HAJI, SUMMAYYA MANZIL,
KALPETTA VILLAGE KALPETTA,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673121
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.P.K.SUBHASH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR,
MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 670645
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN MANANTHAVADY MANANTHAVADY,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 670645
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KUPPADITHARA VILLAGE PADINJARATHARA,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 670645
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.33088 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:66444
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
69.5 Cents of land, comprised in Re-Survey No. 426/3
in Kuppadithara Village, Vythiri Taluk covered under
Ext. P1 land tax receipt. 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 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 relying
on satellite imagery, as specifically mandated under
Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is
2025:KER:66444
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 Government Pleader.
3. 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.
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
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
2025:KER:66444
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.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 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, who in turn has relied on the report
of the Local Level Monitoring Committee ('LLMC'), that
the impugned order has been passed. In fact, going by
the impugned Ext. P3 order, I find that the property is
classified as 'wetland'. Therefore, going by rule 4(4d) of
the Rules, the authorized officer ought to have called for
the report from the Village Officer-fifth respondent. The
2025:KER:66444
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.P3 order is quashed.
ii. The fifth respondent is directed to submit his
report as provided under Rule 4(4e) of the Rules to the
2025:KER:66444
authorised officer within thirty days from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment.
iii. The third respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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 petitioner.
iv. 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/08.09.25
2025:KER:66444
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33088/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10-
09-2021
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM 5 DATED 14-01-
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF
R.D.O.MANANTHAVADY DATED 22-01-2021
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
DATED 31.05.2019
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN RESPECT
OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT DATED 22-04-2024
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER DATED
24-06-2024
