Kerala High Court
Parvathi Sanjeev vs The District Collector Pathanamthitta on 23 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:70883
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 1ST ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19715 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PARVATHI SANJEEV
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O K. CHANDRASHEKHARAN NAIR,
G-1-174 CITY HOMES, ANSAL CITY NEAR,
PUTHIYAKAVU JUCTION,KANAYANNUR,
ERNAKULAM,KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682305
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS
SRI.JOEMON ANTONY
SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN
SHRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO
SMT.ANJANA P.V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PATHANAMTHITTA
COLLECTORATE PATHANAMTHITTA 2ND FLOOR,
COLLECTORATE ROAD, CHITTOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689645
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
KAVUMBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA,
KERALA, PIN - 689101
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
THIRUVALLA TALUK OFFICE,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA,
KERALA, PIN - 689101
WP(C) NO.19715 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:70883
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KAVUMBHAGAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
AMBALAPPUZHA- THIRUVALLA ROAD,
PODIYADI, KAVUMBHAGOM,
THIRUVALLA, KERALA, PIN - 689102
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHIBHAVAN PERINGARA, CHATHENKERY P.O,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA,
KERALA, PIN - 689112
6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR- AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN PERINGARA, CHATHENKERY P.O,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA,
KERALA, PIN - 689112
7 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE
CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.19715 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:70883
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
8.00 Ares of land comprised in Survey No124/1-2 in
Block No. 7 in Kavumbhagom Village, Thiruvalla Taluk,
covered under Ext. P2 land tax receipt. The property is
a converted plot and 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 the data bank, the
petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application in Form 5
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P6
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected
the application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery,
2025:KER:70883
as specifically 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 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],
2025:KER:70883
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 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.P6 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
Agricultural Officer, who in turn has relied on the
recommendations of the Local Level Monitoring
Committee, that the impugned order has been passed.
2025:KER:70883
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
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.P6 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P5 application in accordance
2025:KER:70883
with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call
for the 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/23.09.25
2025:KER:70883
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19715/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED
NO.3446/2006 OF CHANGANASSERY SUB
REGISTRAR OFFICE
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT OFFICE
DATED 06-05-2025
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH ISSUED
FROM THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND
LAND RECORDS TRIVANDRUM
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10-10-
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 02-07-2024 VIDE FILE
