Kerala High Court
K.C.Krishnadas Raja vs The Sub Collector on 8 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 26983 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:66390
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. 26983 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
K.C.KRISHNADAS RAJA,
AGED 50 YEARS
KIZHAKKE KOVILAKATH, KOVILAKAM ROAD,MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676121
BY ADVS.
SMT.LAKSHMI RAMADAS
SHRI.M.R.SABU
SMT.APARNA RAJAN
SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF SUB COLLECTOR, MINI CIVIL STATION,
PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679322
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676505
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.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. 26983 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:66390
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 08th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10.95
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.18/15-1 in Manjeri
Village, Eranadu Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 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.P3 application in Form 5,
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P5 order,
the authorised officer had summarily rejected the said
application. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, the petitioner
had filed W.P(C) No.30227/2023, which was allowed by
Ext.P6 judgment, directing the authorised officer to
2025:KER:66390
reconsider Ext.P3 application on the basis of the satellite
images envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
Notwithstanding the specific directions in the judgment
and receiving Ext.P7 report from the Kerala State Remote
Sensing and Environmental Centre (KSREC), the
authorised officer has again rejected Ext.P3 application by
the impugned Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 is illegal and arbitrary.
Hence the writ petition.
2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior
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
erroneously classified as 'paddy land' and included in the
data bank. Despite filing Ext.P3 application in Form 5, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the application
twice. Therefore, Ext.P8 order is liable to be quashed.
2025:KER:66390
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 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. It is not in dispute that, Ext.P5 order was
quashed by this Court, as per Ext.P6 judgment, by
observing as follows:
" 8. Though a site inspection was carried out, it is not
evident from the impugned order as to whether the land is suitable
for paddy cultivation or whether if the property is removed from
the data bank, it will affect the nearby paddy fields. A perusal of
the impugned order reveals that the specific aspects required to
be considered have not been adverted to and instead, the
Authority proceeded by solely relying on the reports. The 2 nd
respondent could have even considered obtaining the report of
scientific data for deciding the matter by directing the petitioner
2025:KER:66390
to apply for the same. Since the order is bereft of material
particulars and is not issued on any perceivable data, it cannot be
said to be a reasoned order. There is apparently no independent
application of mind to the relevant circumstances, and hence, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside and a fresh consideration
be made.
9. In view of the above, I quash Ext.P5 order issued on the
Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner and direct the 2 nd
respondent to reconsider the application and issue orders afresh,
after considering the report and other relevant factors mentioned
in this judgment. The order, as directed above, shall be issued
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this Judgment."
6. Pursuant to the directions in Ext.P6
judgment, the authorised officer called for Ext.P7 KSREC
report. In Ext.P7 KSREC report, it is observed as follows:
"The analysis has been carried out from all available data
sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2008,
2010, 2012, 2016 and 2022 for the survey plot.
As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 18/15 was
observed as paddy land. The plot bordered by a road on south
and east side was observed under vegetation with plantation
towards south side in the data of 2008. The same land use
pattern was observed to continue in the data of 2010, 2012 and
2016. The data of 2022 shows the plot under mixed vegetation
with scattered plantation towards south border."
7. Notwithstanding the specific observations
in Ext.P7 KSREC report, that the plot is bordered by a
road on the southern and eastern side and is observed
2025:KER:66390
under vegetation with plantations towards southern side
in the data of 2008, and the authorised officer not directly
inspecting the property, the authorised officer has
reiterated the findings in the quashed Ext.P5 order.
8. When the writ petition came up for
consideration on 28.07.2025, this Court had directed the
authorised officer to produce the inspection notes on or
before next posting date.
9. Today, when the writ petition was taken up
for hearing, it is conceded by the learned Senior
Government Pleader that only the Junior Superintendent
of the Office of the authorised officer conducted the
inspection. Nonetheless, she vehemently argued that, as
per report of the Junior Superintendent and the
photographs taken by him of the applied property, the
property is cultivable and was not converted before 2008.
However, she did not dispute the fact that the authorised
officer has not directly inspected the property.
2025:KER:66390
10. Going by Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, the
authorised officer is obliged to either directly inspect the
property or consider the satellite pictures.
11. In the case on hand, even though Ext.P7
KSREC report was received, which prima-facie does not
show the property is in a cultivable, and the authorised
officer admittedly failing to directly inspect the property,
I hold that Ext.P8 order is untenable. There is no
independent finding in Ext.P8 order, regarding the nature
and the character of the land as on the relevant date i.e.,
12.08.2008 or whether the exclusion of the property would
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light
of the conspicuous absence of the above findings, I am of
the definite view that Ext.P8 order is erroneous, against
the statutory mandate and the law laid down by this Court.
Thus, I hold that Ext.P8 order is vitiated by errors of law
and non-application of mind, and is, therefore, liable to be
quashed. Consequently, the authorised officer is to be
2025:KER:66390
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 application as per the
procedure prescribed under the Rules.
In the above said circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P8 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Ext.P3 application, by either directly
inspecting the property or relying on Ext.P7 KSREC
report. The above exercise shall be carried out in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within 60 days from the date of production of a
copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:66390
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26983/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
MANJERI VILLAGE OFFICE NO.60167714 DATED
5.10.2021
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR
2022-23 PAID BY THE PETITIONER DATED
17.05.2022 RECEIPT NO.KL10011403928/2022
EXHIBIT -P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
26.05.2022 NO.13/2022/10144
EXHIBIT -P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER ON 17.10.2022 NO. MKB
10/22-23 (3)
EXHIBIT -P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
EXHIBIT -P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.09.2023
EXHIBIT -P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE TO THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER DATED 03.04.2024
NO.A-172/2015/KSREC/007280/23
EXHIBIT -P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 19.06.2024
NO.FROPTM/3314/2023
EXHIBIT -P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 08.08.2024 AND REPORT
DATED 11.06.2024
