Kerala High Court
Aneesh A vs The Sub Collector Exercising The Powers ... on 16 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:68723
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. 25274 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANEESH A
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN A, APPENGAL HOUSE,
CHEMMANIYODE P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679325
BY ADV SRI.K.ABOOBACKER SIDHEEQUE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR EXERCISING THE POWERS OF THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MELATTUR VILLAGE OFFICE, MELATTUR P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679326
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE MELATTUR
GRAMA PANCHAYAT
KRISHI BHAVAN, MELATTUR P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679326
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE
CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V.,
STANDING COUNSEL-SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
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.25274 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:68723
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
0.0445 hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.
242/1-7 in Block No.2 in Melattur Village,
Perinthalmanna Taluk. 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 an application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of
the Rules. However, by Ext.P2 order, the authorised
officer has summarily rejected the application without
either conducting a personal inspection of the land or
2025:KER:68723
relying 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.
2025:KER:68723
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 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.P2 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
Agricultural Officer, that the impugned order has been
passed. The authorised officer has not rendered any
2025:KER:68723
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.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P2 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the petitioner's Form 5 application in
accordance with law. The authorised officer shall either
2025:KER:68723
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.
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/16.09.2025
2025:KER:68723
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25274/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED ON 30.03.2024 BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 930/2025
DATED 07.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
