Kerala High Court
S Krishnan vs State Of Kerala on 16 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 24336 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:68677
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. 24336 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 S KRISHNAN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.SUBBRUYYAN CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT DWARAKA,
MYTHRI NAGAR, SUNDARA IYYER ROAD, OTTAPPALAM,
PIN - 679103
2 MANJULA
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O.P.VISWANATHAN, DWARAKA, MYTHRI NAGAR,
SUNDARA IYYER ROAD, OTTAPPALAM, PIN - 679103
BY ADV SHRI.V.B.RAMANUNNI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE
DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD,
KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR)
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (U/S. 2(XV)A OF THE
PADDY AND WETLAND ACT) THALAPPULLY TALUK,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
KONDAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR,
PIN - 679106
WP(C) NO. 24336 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:68677
5 TAHSILDAR
THALAPPULLI TALUK OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERY,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680623
BY SMT.DEEPA V, GP
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. 24336 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:68677
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession of
0.0283 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.676/P-4
in Mayannur Village, Thalappilly Taluk, covered under
Ext.P2 possession certificate. The property is a converted
land and is 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 petitioners 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 calling for
2025:KER:68677
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
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' 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
2025:KER:68677
[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 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
2025:KER:68677
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 petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider 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 petitioners.
2025:KER:68677
(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 petitioners.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:68677
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24336/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.273/2012 OF
SRO PAZHAYANNUR
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 19-6-2025
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM.5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.857 DATED 30-
11-2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY
