Kerala High Court
M.V Sivakumar vs The District Collector on 16 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:68922
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. 46125 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
M.V SIVAKUMAR,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. VASU, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA,
KURUKKALTHARA, VADAKKENCHERRY P.O,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678682
BY ADV SHRI.BINIYAMIN K.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION PALAKKAD,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678013
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT NAGAR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
CIVIL STATION PALAKKAD,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678013
4 THE THAHSILDAR (LR),
ALATHUR TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678541
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VADAKKENCHERRY-1 VILLAGE OFFICE,
VADAKKENCHERRY P.O, ALATHUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678682
WP(C) NO.46125 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:68922
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
VADAKKENCHERRY KRISHI BHAVAN,
VADAKKENCHERRY P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678683
7 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
VADAKKENCHERRY GRAMAPANCHAYATH,
VADAKKENCHERRY P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678683
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.46125 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:68922
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
28.78 Ares of land comprised in several survey
numbers in Vadakkencherry-I Village, Alathur 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. A reading of Ext. P7 order
substantiates that, the authorised officer referred to
2025:KER:68922
Ext. P5 report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and
Environment Centre ('KSREC report', for short). In
fact, Ext. P5 KSREC report was obtained at the time of
the preparation of the data bank and is much prior to
Ext. P4 application. Ext. P7 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. In the counter affidavit filed by the third
respondent, it is contended that the petitioner's property
is classified as 'Nilam' (wetland) in the basic tax receipt
and the possession certificate. The 6th respondent has
reported that the land is kept barren and the land is
suitable for paddy cultivation and not converted before
2008. Therefore, it need not be excluded from the data
bank. The petitioner has intentionally alleged that there
is no history of paddy cultivation in the said property. It
2025:KER:68922
is in the said circumstances that Ext. P7 order has
passed.
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. 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,
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
2025:KER:68922
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.
6. A reading of Ext.P7 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.
Even though in Ext. P7 order it is reflected that the
authorised officer has referred to Ext. P5 KSREC report,
I find that Ext. P5 report was received on 24.02.2020,
which is well before the Form 5 application dated
04.05.2023. Under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, it would be up
to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the
property or call for the satellite images after the receipt
of the Form 5 application. Therefore, the reliance based
on Ext. P5 KSREC report is untenable. Ext. P7 order also
substantiates that the authorised officer has not
rendered any independent finding regarding the nature
2025:KER:68922
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.P7 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P4 application in accordance
with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call
2025:KER:68922
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/16.09.25
2025:KER:68922
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46125/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.
KL09012702305/2023 DATED 13-04-2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
PUBLISHED DATA BANK OF VADAKKENCHERY
GRAMA PANCHAYATH
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BEARING FILE
NO.06/2022 DATED 21-04-2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04-05-2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT BEARING NO.
A/172/2015/KSREC/016043/18 DATED 24-02-
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 20-07-2024
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BEARING FILE
NO.73/2024 DATED 08-10-2024
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
