Kerala High Court
Krishna Veni vs Deputy Collector (La) on 8 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 39904 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:66389
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. 39904 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KRISHNA VENI,
AGED 45 YEARS
D/O VILASINI AMMA, PADATTU HOUSE, CHENTRAPINNI P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680687
BY ADVS.SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR
SHRI.P.BABU KUMAR
SMT.JAHRA K.
SMT.ASWINI SANKAR R.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION ROAD, ANNEXE,
IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680125
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, EDAKKULAM, POOMANGALAM, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680688
4 SECRETARY,
POOMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, POOMANGALAM, PIN -
680688
5 VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, POOMANGALAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680121
BY ADV SHRI.JAGADEESH, SC, POOMANGALAM GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, THRISSUR
SMT.DEEPA V, GP
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. 39904 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:66389
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 08th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 12.14
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.544/2-6 in
Poomangalam Village, Mukundapuram Taluk, covered
under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. 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 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 calling for the satellite pictures as mandated
2025:KER:66389
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 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:66389
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.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 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 3rd
respondent/Agricultural Officer without rendering 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
2025:KER:66389
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.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 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
authorised officer opts to inspect the property
2025:KER:66389
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:66389
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39904/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TAX RECEIPT DATED 02/06/2024
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 10/06/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED
01/03/2023 ISSUED BY RDO
