Kerala High Court
Sheena N vs District Collector on 17 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:69240
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. 20597 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHEENA N
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O. MOHANDAS, KUNNATHERI HOUSE,
CHEVARAMBALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673017
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
SMT.DIVYADEVI V.G.
SMT.ANGEL GYLES LIKE
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTTOOLY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673016
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTOOLY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673016
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- 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:
WP(C) NO.20597 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:69240
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2
Ares and 50.1 sq. meters of land comprised in Survey
No. 26/38 in Kottooly Village, Kozhikode Taluk. The
property is a converted plot and 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 Ext.P1
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 relying
on satellite imagery, as specifically mandated under
2025:KER:69240
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.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
2025:KER:69240
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
Village Officer, that the impugned order has been
passed. The authorised officer has not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature and character
of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no
2025:KER:69240
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 Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kozhikode/authorised officer is directed to reconsider
Ext.P1 application in accordance with law. The
authorised officer shall either conduct a personal
inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the
2025:KER:69240
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/17.09.25
2025:KER:69240
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20597/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 09-02-2023
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED
09-12-2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
