Kerala High Court
Anna George vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:67597
WP(C) NO. 6922 OF 2025
1
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. 6922 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 ANNA GEORGE
AGED 72 YEARS
W/O PRASAD M. GEORGE, RESIDING AT THASIYIL HOUSE,
ASOKAPURAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
683101
2 ANUJI ABRAHAM
AGED 76 YEARS
D/O JOSEPH VARGHESE, PULIKAPARAMBIL, PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683542
3 JOMINE THOMAS
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O THOMAS, PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
4 JASMINE THOMAS
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O THOMAS, PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
5 T.A. MURALIDHARAN
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O APPU GURUKKAL, RESIDING AT SHARIKA, ST.
VINCENT CONVENT ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, KOCHI, PIN - 682025
BY ADV SRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
2025:KER:67597
WP(C) NO. 6922 OF 2025
2
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
KANAYANNUR TALUK, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY
CONVENER/AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682307
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682307
BY ADV SHRI.K.P.MADHU, SC, UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:67597
WP(C) NO. 6922 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2025
The 1st petitioner is the owner in possession of
3.85 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.68/1-16,
2nd petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.80 Ares of
land comprised in Re-survey No.68/1-15, the
petitioners 3 and 4 are the co-owners in possession of
7.76 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.62/3-11
and the 5th petitioner is the owner in possession of
5.66 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.62/3-13
all in Block No.19 of Manakunnam Village,
Kanayannur Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 series land
tax receipts. The properties are converted lands and
are unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the
respondents have erroneously classified the properties
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
2025:KER:67597
WP(C) NO. 6922 OF 2025
thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules', for brevity). To exclude
the properties from the data bank, the petitioners had
submitted Ext.P2 series applications in Form 5, under
Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P4 series
orders, the authorised officer has summarily rejected
the applications 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 orders are 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 orders,
therefore, are arbitrary and unsustainable in law and
liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' principal contention is that the
applied properties are not cultivable paddy field but are
converted plots. Nonetheless, the properties have been
2025:KER:67597
WP(C) NO. 6922 OF 2025
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing
Form 5 applications, 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
are the decisive criteria to determine whether the
property is to be excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P4 series orders reveal 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
2025:KER:67597
WP(C) NO. 6922 OF 2025
properties or called for the satellite pictures as
mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Insteads, the
authorised officer has merely acted upon the reports 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 properties would
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light
of the above findings, I hold that the impugned orders
were passed in contravention of the statutory mandate
and the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the impugned
orders are vitiated due to errors of law and non-
application of mind, and are liable to be quashed.
Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to
reconsider the Form 5 applications as per the procedure
prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P4 series orders are quashed.
2025:KER:67597
WP(C) NO. 6922 OF 2025
(ii) The 2 nd
respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 series applications, in accordance
with the law, by either conducting a personal inspection
of the properties or calling for the satellite pictures as
provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the
petitioners.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the
applications 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
properties personally, the applications shall be 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
rmm/11/9/2025
2025:KER:67597
WP(C) NO. 6922 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6922/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT
NO.KLO7O20914801/2024 DATED 7.12.2024
FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX ISSUED TO THE
1ST PETITIONER FROM THE MANAKUNNAM
VILLAGE OFFICE
Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL07020914831/ 2024 DATED 7.12.2024
FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX ISSUED TO THE
2ND PETITIONER FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE,
MANAKUNNAM
Exhibit P1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL07020906686/2024 DATED 27.5.2024
ISSUED TO PETITIONERS 3 AND 4 FROM THE
VILLAGE OFFICE, MANAKUNNAM
Exhibit P1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL07020917197/2022 DATED 19.11.2022
ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER FROM
VILLAGE OFFICE, MANAKUNNAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM
NO.5 DATED 9.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM
NO.5 DATED 9.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE
2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM
NO.5 DATED 9.5.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS 3 AND 4 BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM
NO.5 DATED 19.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE
5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 13.11.2023
IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF 1ST
PETITIONER I.E. 3.85 ARES IN RE-SURVEY
NO.68/1-16 BLOCK NO.19 OF MANAKUNNAM
VILLAGE, SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 13.11.2023
IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF 2ND
PETITIONER I.E. 3.80ARES OF LAND IN RE-
SURVEY NO.68/1-15, BLOCK NO.19 OF
2025:KER:67597
WP(C) NO. 6922 OF 2025
MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE SUBMITTED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16.10.2024
IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF
PETITIONERS 3 AND 4 I.E. 7.76 ARES OF
LAND IN RE-SURVEY NO.62/3-11, BLOCK
NO.19 OF MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE SUBMITTED BY
3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 9.11.2023
IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF 5TH
PETITIONER I.E. 5.66ARES IN RE-SURVEY
NO.62/3-13, BLOCK NO.19 OF MANAKUNNAM
VILLAGE SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (FILE
NO.3057/2024) DATED 6.11.2024 REJECTING
THE APPLICATION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (FILE
NO.3059/2024) DATED 6.11.2024 REJECTING
THE APPLICATION OF THE 2ND PETITIONER BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (FILE
NO.3295/2024) DATED 9.11.2024 REJECTING
THE APPLICATION OF THE 3RD PETITIONER BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER (FILE
NO.3075/2024) DATED 6.11.2024 REJECTING
THE APPLICATION OF THE 5TH PETITIONER BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
