Kerala High Court
Lakshmi N vs State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:69219
WP(C) NO. 21147 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21147 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
LAKSHMI N
AGED 80 YEARS
S/O. KARUNAKARAN SARASWATHI VILAS , KOOPLIKKADAN
HOUSE, PONNUKKARA P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678651
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ
SHRI.JOBY JOSEPH (THRISSUR)
SMT.K.VINAYA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
AYYANTHOLE, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
TALUK OFFICE THRISSUR CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN -
680022
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
EDAKUNNI VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680306
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN OLLUR THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2025:KER:69219
WP(C) NO. 21147 OF 2025
2
6 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R R)
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:69219
WP(C) NO. 21147 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.2
Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 55/75-19 of
Edakunni Village, Thrissur Taluk, covered under Ext.P2
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.P4 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling
for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f)
2025:KER:69219
WP(C) NO. 21147 OF 2025
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
Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad
2025:KER:69219
WP(C) NO. 21147 OF 2025
[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
property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy
fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that the
2025:KER:69219
WP(C) NO. 21147 OF 2025
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 2nd 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
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
2025:KER:69219
WP(C) NO. 21147 OF 2025
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
rmm/17/9/2025
2025:KER:69219
WP(C) NO. 21147 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21147/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
DOCUMENT NO. 1092/1/2018 DATED 30.5.2018
OF SRO CHERPPU
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
2.4.2025 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
EDAKUNNI
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 DATED
17.2.2024
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY 6TH
RESPONDENT DATED 27.10.2024
