Kerala High Court
Shajimon C H vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 8747 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:69849
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 27TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 8747 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
SHAJIMON C H,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O HARIDAS C V .,RESIDING AT CHOLAYIL HOUSE,
PILAPPULLY,PARUTHIPULLY, PERINGOTTUKURISSI,ALATHUR
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678573
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SHRI.ADARSH MOHAN K.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KENATHUPARAMBU,KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
U/S 2XV A, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678541
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
KRISHI BHAVAN, PERINGOTTUKURISSI,REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER,AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
PERINGOTTUKURISSI,PALAKKAD, PIN - 678573
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
PERINGOTTUKURISSI,KRISHI BHAVAN, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN
- 678573
WP(C) NO. 8747 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:69849
* 6 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),TALUK OFFICE ,CIVIL STATION COMPLEX,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
THE ADDRESS OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS:
THE TAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD,
678541 - AS PER ORDER DATED 18.09.2025 IN IA NO.1/2025.
7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERINGOTTUKURISSI ,PERINGOTTUKURISSI SOUTH ,PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678574
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 8747 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:69849
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 8747 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.2 Ares of
land comprised in Survey No.430/23 in Block No.4 in
Peringottukurissi-I Village, Palakkad District. The property 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.P1 application in Form 5, under
Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P5 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the application
without directly inspecting the property. Even though the 5 th
respondent/Agricultural Officer had submitted Ext.P2 report
from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment
Centre, the authorised officer has not considered the said
WP(C) NO. 8747 OF 2025
2025:KER:69849
report in its proper perspective. The authorised officer has
also not rendered 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. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this Court has
held that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness of the land,
and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation as on
12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, are
the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue
Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank
WP(C) NO. 8747 OF 2025
2025:KER:69849
(read the decisions of this Court in 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 and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association and
Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others (2020 (2)
KHC 94), a Division Bench of this Court has held that, merely
because a property is lying fallow and water gets logged
during rainy season or otherwise, due to the low lying nature
of the property, it cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land
in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken
by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional
Officer, Irinjalakuda, (2023 (6) KHC 83), holding that the
prime consideration to retain a property in data bank is to
ascertain whether paddy cultivation is possible in the land.
6. Similarly, in Adani Infrastructures & Developers Pvt.
Ltd, Mumbai & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Others (2014 (1)
KHC 685), this Court has succinctly held that, if a land
suitable for paddy cultivation is left uncultivated and fallow,
WP(C) NO. 8747 OF 2025
2025:KER:69849
and if the said land is included as paddy land in the village
records, but the land is locked on all four sides with lands
which were reclaimed before the coming into force of the Act,
such land cannot be said to be suitable for cultivation and may
come outside the definition of paddy land.
7. A reading of Ext.P5 order reveals that the authorised
officer has not personally inspected the property. In Ext.P2
KSREC report it is observed that the property is bordered by a
road on the north side and was observed under vegetation in
the data of 2008, the same land use pattern continued in the
the data of 2010 and 2011, and furthermore in the data of
2017 and 2022 that the plot is under mixed
vegetation/plantation. Despite the above findings, the
authorised officer has rejected the Form 5 application without
rendering any independent finding regarding the nature and
character of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no
independent finding whether the exclusion of the property
would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. It is
the petitioner's case that as per Ext.P4 sketch the property is
surrounded by residential commercial buildings. Therefore,
WP(C) NO. 8747 OF 2025
2025:KER:69849
the property is landlocked. Despite the said factual scenario
the authorised officer has rejected the application.
8. On a consideration of the facts and materials on
record, especially that the authorised officer has not rendered
any independent finding regarding the nature and character of
the property as on 12.08.2008, I am of the definite view that
Ext.P5 order is vitiated due to errors of law and non
application of mind and the same is liable to be quashed.
Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to
reconsider Ext.P1 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.P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 3rd 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 referring to Ext.P2
KSREC report in its proper perspective.
(iii) The above exercise shall be carried out within 60
WP(C) NO. 8747 OF 2025
2025:KER:69849
days from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/18.09.25
WP(C) NO. 8747 OF 2025
2025:KER:69849
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8747/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION NO:
8/2023/13859 DATED 11/7/2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KSREC DATED
27.02.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 24/9/24
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING THE FORM 5
APPLICATION NO: 8/2023/13859 DATED 10/2/2025
Exhibit P6 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE
