Prasad M vs The Sub Collector (Revenue Divisional ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9030 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9030 Ker
Judgement Date : 22 September, 2025

Kerala High Court

Prasad M vs The Sub Collector (Revenue Divisional ... on 22 September, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

WP(C) NO. 26612 OF 2025           1                    2025:KER:70574

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

   MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 31ST BHADRA, 1947

                       WP(C) NO. 26612 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

          PRASAD M
          AGED 51 YEARS
          S/O. M HARIDAS GUPTAN, RESIDING AT L 4/19, PUSHPA,
          KSHB COLONY, MALAPARAMBA P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN
          - 673009


          BY ADVS.
          SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
          SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF
          SHRI.WINSTON K.V
          SMT.ANU JACOB
          SMT.ANJANA KRISHNAN




RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE SUB COLLECTOR (REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER),
          KOZHIKODE
          COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
          PIN - 673020

    2     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          CHEVAYUR VILLAGE OFFICE, CHEVAYUR P.O, KOZHIKODE
          DISTRICT, PIN - 673012

    3     THE AGRICULTURAL FILED OFFICER FOR THE KOZHIKODE
          CORPORATION
          AGRICULTURE OFFICE, NEAR AKASHVANI, MANANCHIRA,
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673032
 WP(C) NO. 26612 OF 2025        2                  2025:KER:70574

    4     KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
          FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE
          CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS
          DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033


          GP.SMT.DEEPA V., SC- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 26612 OF 2025        3                  2025:KER:70574

                            C.S.DIAS, J.
                ---------------------------------------
                 WP(C) No. 26612 OF 2025
               -----------------------------------------
        Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2025

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.4898

Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.247/27 in Block

No.1 Chevayur Village, Kozhikode Taluk, Kozhikode

District. 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 Ext.P1 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 WP(C) NO. 26612 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:70574

inspection of the land or calling for the 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 Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer WP(C) NO. 26612 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:70574

[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 Village 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 WP(C) NO. 26612 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:70574

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 1st respondent authorised officer is directed to

reconsider the Ext.P1 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.

WP(C) NO. 26612 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:70574

(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 SCB.22.09.25.

WP(C) NO. 26612 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:70574