M S Sivadas vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 8990 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8990 Ker
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2025

Kerala High Court

M S Sivadas vs State Of Kerala on 19 September, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                2025:KER:69995
WP(C) NO. 25549 OF 2025

                                1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

 FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 28TH BHADRA, 1947

                    WP(C) NO. 25549 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

         M S SIVADAS
         AGED 71 YEARS
         S/O. SANKARA MENON, SREELAKAM CHUDUVALATHUR,
         SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679121


         BY ADVS.
         SMT.PREEJA V.P.
         SRI.V.P.PRASANTH




RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE
         DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2    THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
         1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION , CIVIL LINES ROAD,
         AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003

    3    THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR ( RR)
         1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION , CIVIL LINES ROAD,
         AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003

    4    THE THASILDAR
         THRISSUR TALUK, PALACE ROAD, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR
         DISTRICT, PIN - 680020
                                                          2025:KER:69995
WP(C) NO. 25549 OF 2025

                                      2


     5     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
           VILLAGE OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN
           - 680003

     6     THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
           AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003

     7     THE DIRECTOR
           KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
           CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN -
           695033



OTHER PRESENT:

             SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
             SC-SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   19.09.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                  2025:KER:69995
WP(C) NO. 25549 OF 2025

                                  3


                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of September, 2025

The petitioner is the owner in possession of

4.05 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 718/PT 14 in

Ayyanthole 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.P4 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 either conducting a

personal inspection of the land or calling for the 2025:KER:69995 WP(C) NO. 25549 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:69995 WP(C) NO. 25549 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.P5 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, who in turn has relied on the recommendations

of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The authorised 2025:KER:69995 WP(C) NO. 25549 OF 2025

officer has not rendered 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 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.P5 order is quashed.

(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed

to reconsider the Form 5 application, in accordance with 2025:KER:69995 WP(C) NO. 25549 OF 2025

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

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/19/9/2025 2025:KER:69995 WP(C) NO. 25549 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25549/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO: 93413253 DATED 04.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTOLE VILLAGE Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT WITH NO:

KL08017402950/2025 DATED 29.04.2025 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WITH NO: DW5/BA/614/11-12 DATED 02.09.2019 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 28.07.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY 4TH RESPONDENT IN APPLICATION NO: