Kerala High Court
Lijiya K.T vs State Of Kerala on 12 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:67845
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 21ST BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 20126 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
LIJIYA K.T,
AGED 44 YEARS
D/O.THULASIDAS, KARUTHAM VEETTIL,
WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673005
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR
SMT.T.O.DEEPA
SHRI.JAYKAR.K.S.
SHRI.C.SIVADAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOTTOOLI VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTOOLI P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.20126 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:67845
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
12.15 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.35/33 in Re-
Survey Block No. 0001 in Kottooli Village, Kozhikode
Taluk covered under Ext. P2 land tax receipt. The
property is a converted plot and 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.P4 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or relying
2025:KER:67845
on satellite imagery, as specifically mandated 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 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,
2025:KER:67845
Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
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.P4 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
Village Officer, that the impugned order has been
passed. The 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
2025:KER:67845
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.P4 order is quashed.
ii. The third respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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.
2025:KER:67845
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 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/12.09.25
2025:KER:67845
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20126/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 A TRUE COPY OF DEED OF PARTITION
NO.3816/1 OF CHEVAYOOR SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE DATED 08/09/2006
Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL11012403614/2024 DATED 31/05/2024
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT-VILLAGE
OFFICER
Exhibit P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5-
APPLICATION DATED 28/02/2022
Exhibit P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/12/2023
IN FILE NO.6220/2023, ON THE FILE OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT-REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
Exhibit P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/06/2023
IN FILE NO.1862/2023, ON THE FILE OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT-REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OF K.
NIRMALA
Exhibit P-6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2023
IN FILE NO.3808/2023, ON THE FILE OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT-REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OF K.
PRAJESH
Exhibit P-7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/12/2023
IN FILE NO.6221/2023, ON THE FILE OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT-REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OF
PRAJILA C.K
