Kerala High Court
Koyakutty M vs The Sub Collector, Tirur on 16 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:68758
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 25TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39946 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KOYAKUTTY M.,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED,MELETHIL HOUSE,
PAKARA, TANALUR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676307
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
SHRI.ISTINAF ABDULLAH
SRI.P.ABDUL NISHAD
SMT.THASNEEM A.P.
SMT.DHILNA DILEEP
SHRI.SHEHSAD A.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR, TIRUR,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
TIRUR,MINI CIVIL STATION, TIRUR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, TANALUR,
TANALUR KRISHI BHAVAN, TANALUR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676307
3 THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR,
TIRUR TALUK OFFICE, TIRUR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TANALUR,
TANALUR VILLAGE OFFICE, TANALUR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676307
WP(C) NO.39946 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:68758
5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
TANALUR KRISHI BHAVAN,TANALUR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676307
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT.DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.39946 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:68758
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
5.67 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 145/11 in
Tanalur Village, Tirur Taluk, covered under Ext. P1
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.P4 application in Form 5 under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P7 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without conducting a personal inspection of
the land. Even though the Agricultural Officer had
2025:KER:68758
submitted Ext. P6 report of the Kerala State Remote
Sensing and Environment Centre ('KSREC report', for
short), the authorised officer has not considered the
fact that the property is a fallow land in the data of
2008. The authorised officer has not rendered 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 and whether exclusion of
the property from the data bank would prejudicially
affect the paddy cultivation of the surrounding locality.
The impugned order, therefore, is arbitrary and legally
unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.
2.In the statement filed by the first respondent, it is
contended that, the Agricultural Officer has submitted a
field inspection report along with the KSREC report. As
per the said reports, the applied property is found to be
cultivable fallow land, and therefore, it was
recommended not to exclude the land from the data
2025:KER:68758
bank. It is based on the Agricultural Officer's report and
the KSREC report that the impugned order has been
passed. There is no illegality in the impugned order.
Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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.
5. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this Court
has held that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness of
the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy
cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into
force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be
2025:KER:68758
ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude
a property from the data bank (read the decisions of this
Court 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 and others (2021
(1) KLT 433)).
6. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents
Association and Another v. District Collector,
Ernakulam and others (2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division
Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a
property is lying fallow and water gets logged during
rainy season or otherwise, due to the low lying nature of
the property, it cannot be treated as wetland or paddy
land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has
been taken by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v.
Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda, (2023 (6)
2025:KER:68758
KHC 83), holding that the prime consideration to retain a
property in data bank is to ascertain whether paddy
cultivation is possible in the land.
7. Similarly, in Adani Infrastructures &
Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai & Others Vs. State of
Kerala & Others (2014 (1) KHC 685), this Court has
succinctly held that, if a land suitable for paddy
cultivation is left uncultivated and fallow, and if the said
land is included as paddy land in the village records, but
the land is locked on all four sides with lands which were
reclaimed before the coming into force of the Act, such
land cannot be said to be suitable for cultivation and may
come outside the definition of paddy land.
8. A reading of Ext.P7 order reveals that the
authorised officer has not directly inspected the
property. Instead, the authorised officer had called for
the report of the Agricultural Officer, who in turn has
2025:KER:68758
called for Ext. P6 KSREC report. In both the reports, it is
revealed that the property is fallow land.
9. Going by the law laid down in the afore-cited
decisions, it is trite that, merely because a land is lying
fallow, the same cannot be treated to be a paddy land.
Moreover, the authorised officer has not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature and character
of the land as on the relevant date and whether the
exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the
surrounding paddy fields.
10. 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.
2025:KER:68758
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P7 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P4 application in accordance with law,
by either conducting a personal inspection of the
property or by referring to Ext. P6 KSREC report and the
case laws referred to above.
iii. The above exercise shall be carried out within 60
days from the date of production of a copy of the
judgment.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/16.09.2025
2025:KER:68758
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39946/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED BY TANALUR VILLAGE OFFICE DATED
07.06.2024
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED NIL
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH
ONLINE DATED 20.02.2024
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 01.11.2024
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE REPORT OF THE KSREC DATED 01.11.2024
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02.11.2024
