Kerala High Court
Janaki.K.P vs State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:69220
WP(C) NO. 15992 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. 15992 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JANAKI.K.P.
AGED 75 YEARS
W/O. K.P. PAVITHRAN, PAVITHRAM HOUSE, CHELAVUR,
NARIKKUNIVAYAL, CHELAVUR, PIN - 673571
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.FIROZ
SMT.M.SHAJNA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MANANTHAVADY WAYANAD,,
PIN - 670645
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAWAN, EDAVAKA POST, MANANTHAVADY -
WAYANAD,, PIN - 670645
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
THRISSILERI VILLAGE OFFICE, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD
-, PIN - 670646
2025:KER:69220
WP(C) NO. 15992 OF 2025
2
5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.DEEPA V.,
SC- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:69220
WP(C) NO. 15992 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4
Ares and 5 Sq.Metres of land comprised in Survey
No.52/32 Thrissilleri Village, Mananthavady Taluk,
covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. 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 petitioner had submitted an application
in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by
Ext.P3 order, the authorised officer has summarily
rejected the application without either conducting a
personal inspection of the land or calling for the
2025:KER:69220
WP(C) NO. 15992 OF 2025
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
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
2025:KER:69220
WP(C) NO. 15992 OF 2025
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 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.P3 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
2025:KER:69220
WP(C) NO. 15992 OF 2025
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 circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 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
2025:KER:69220
WP(C) NO. 15992 OF 2025
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 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:69220
WP(C) NO. 15992 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15992/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
9.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THRISSILLERI
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 10.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, THRISSILLERI
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER HAVING NO.
RDOMDY/2277/2020-F1 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY DATED
3.10.2023
