Kerala High Court
Rajesh.R vs The District Collector on 11 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 10811 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:67638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 10811 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
RAJESH.R.
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.RAMACHANDRAN.T, KALPAKASSERY, KATTAMANGALAM,
KAINAKARI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688501
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.P.K.SUBHASH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688013
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MARARIKULAM NORTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688523
4 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR
REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN -
688011
5 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
OTHER PRESENT:
WP(C) NO. 10811 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:67638
SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10811 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:67638
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 10811 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5.60 Ares
of land comprised in Re-Survey No.334/12 in Mararikulam
Village, Alappuzha District covered under Ext.P2 land tax
receipt. The property is a garden land and unsuitable for
paddy cultivation. 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.P7 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P9 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 under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
Furthermore, the order is devoid of any independent finding
WP(C) NO. 10811 OF 2025
2025:KER:67638
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 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
WP(C) NO. 10811 OF 2025
2025:KER:67638
are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property is
to be excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P9 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
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 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
WP(C) NO. 10811 OF 2025
2025:KER:67638
petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P9 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form 5 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
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
rkc/11.09.25
WP(C) NO. 10811 OF 2025
2025:KER:67638
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10811/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3106/I/2023
DATED 29.12.2023 OF SRO MARARIKULAM IN
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL04021102849/2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 10.04.2024
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO.84206039 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 19.03.2024 IN RESPECT
OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF FAIR
VALUE REGISTER OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICIAL
WEBSITE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.1/2024 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER DATED
04.03.2024
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GAZETTE
NOTIFICATION NO.2881 DATED 05.11.2020
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
21.3.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM
5 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2024
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2024
(FILE NO.1404/2024) OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR
(D.M.) R.D.O. UNDER SECTION 2(XVA).
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED
25-03-2023 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER COVERED BY EXT.P9
