Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ajith D vs The District Collector
2025 Latest Caselaw 8696 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8696 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 September, 2025

Kerala High Court

Ajith D vs The District Collector on 12 September, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
                                                 2025:KER:68058


          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. 20133 OF 2024

PETITIONER/S:

         AJITH D,
         AGED 38 YEARS
         CHEMMINIPARAMBU(H),
         PARALI PO PARALI - II,
         PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD,
         PIN - 678612


         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.RAFEEK. V.K.
         SMT.NISHNA P.T.
         SRI.U.M.HASSAN




RESPONDENT/S:

    1    THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
         COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION COMPLEX,
         PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678001

    2    THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAR, PALAKKAD,
         KERALA, PIN - 678001

    3    TAHSILDAR,
         TALUK OFFICE , CIVIL STATION COMPLEX,
         PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
 W.P.(c) No.20133 of 2024

                                  2


                                                     2025:KER:68058



     4       LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTE,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
             THEAGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBAVAN,
             CIVIL STATION , PALAKKAD,
             PIN - 678001



OTHER PRESENT:

             SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE


      THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   12.09.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(c) No.20133 of 2024

                                3


                                                  2025:KER:68058

                        C.S.DIAS.,J
             ---------------------
                 W.P.(c) No.20133 of 2024
         ---------------------------
         Dated this the 12th day of September, 2025

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.45

Ares land comprised in Re.Sy.No.273/17 in Block No.18 in

Parali-II Village of Palakkad 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.P3 application in

Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P5

order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the

2025:KER:68058

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 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

2025:KER:68058

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.P5 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,

who in turn has relied on the recommendations of the Local

2025:KER:68058

Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC). 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 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.

6. In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow

the writ petition in the following manner:

(i) Ext.P5 order is quashed.

(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed

2025:KER:68058

to reconsider the Ext.P3 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 rpk

2025:KER:68058

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20133/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 01-04-

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PUBLISHED DATA BANK DATED 24-03-2012 PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION DATED 11-08-2020 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 11-08-2020 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTED ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.10.2022 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 28-05-2020 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF RDO DATED 18-04-

Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT NO.

A/172/2015/KSREC/007765/23 DATED 31-01-2024

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter