Kerala High Court
Valiyarathala Thampuran Kshethra ... vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2025
W.P.(C) No.30291 of 2025 1
2025:KER:71297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 30291 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
VALIYARATHALA THAMPURAN KSHETHRA SABHA
BEARING REG. NO. 209/83, REGISTERED UNDER
TRAVANCORE COCHIN LITERARY SCIENTIFIC AND
CHARITABLE SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, VALIYARATHALA, OORUTTAMPALAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695507
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
SHRI.ATUL MATHEWS
SMT.GAYATHRI S.B.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL SECRETARY,
AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
3 REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER (DEPUTY COLLECTOR LA)
OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, MALAYANKIZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695571
W.P.(C) No.30291 of 2025 2
2025:KER:71297
5 THE TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE MALAYINKEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695571
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE MALAYANKIZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695571
7 V.S. SADASHIVAN NAIR
RESIDING AT RAJAGIRI VEEDU, VALIYARATHALA,
OORITTAMPALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695507
ADDL.R8 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ADDL.R8 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
24.09.2025 IN WP(C).
BY ADV SRI.T.U.SUJITH KUMAR
GP SMT.NIMA JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.30291 of 2025 3
2025:KER:71297
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P.(C) No.30291 of 2025
.................................................................
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 order
wherein the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner for removing
the property from the data bank has been rejected.
2. Petitioner society is the owner and title holder of 3.56 Ares of
land comprised in re-survey No.225/14-2-1, block No.6, Malayinkizhu
Village, Kattakkada Taluk of Thiruvananthapuram District. Petitioner
contends that Ext.P5 order was issued without following the procedures
prescribed under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,
2008 and the Rules. A perusal of Ext.P5 order would reveal that the said
order has been issued solely relying on the report of the Agricultural
Officer.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court in Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and
Others [2017 (1) KHC 394] has held that the Data Bank that was
contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain details only
of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of
2025:KER:71297
LLMC concerned. Further, in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala [2020 (5)
KHC 490] has held that the data bank to be prepared under the Act is
the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of the
coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In Joy v. Revenue
Divisional Officer/Sub Collector [2021 (1) KLT 433], it was held that it
is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that
matters, to include or exclude a land from the data bank. This Court in
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (4) KLT
OnLine 1222] has held that the most relevant aspect while considering
Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a
wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit
for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not
satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific
data including satellite photographs obtained from KSRSEC. This Court
in Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT
270] has held that when the petitioner seeks removal of his land from the
Data Bank, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to
dismiss the application simply stating that the LLMC has decided not to
remove the land from the Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer
being the competent authority, has to independently assess the status of
the land and come to a conclusion that removal of the land from Data
Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question or in
2025:KER:71297
the nearby paddy lands or that it will adversely affect sustenance of
wetlands in the area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned
order is unsustainable. Further, this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (5) KLT 432] has held that the
predominant factor for consideration while considering the Form-5
application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded
from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible.
5. In spite of the categorical declaration by this Court in a catena
of judgments as cited above, the application submitted by the petitioner
has been rejected solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer.
5. In view of the above, Ext.P5 order is set aside with a
consequential direction to the additional 8th respondent/authorised officer
to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner. If the
petitioner submits an application to the Agricultural Officer concerned
seeking to obtain KSRSEC report, paying the prescribed fee within a
period of two weeks, the officer concerned shall reconsider the Form-5
application within a further period of two months from the date of receipt
of the KSRSEC report and take a final decision in the matter after
considering the report as well as the relevant factors stipulated in Rule
4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules,
2008 and after conducting a site inspection. Petitioner will be free to file
argument notes incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by him
2025:KER:71297
to substantiate his contentions and the additional 8th
respondent/authorised officer while reconsidering the matter as directed
above, shall advert to the findings of this Court in the judgments cited
(supra) and also the contentions of the petitioner in the argument notes
submitted by him.
With the abovesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
2025:KER:71297
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30291/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE LOCAL
LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE DATED 26-02-
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
G.O.NO.577/2024/AGRI DATED 27-06-2024
OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
G.O.NO.916/2024/AGRI DATED 29-09-2024
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE FOURTH
RESPONDENT DATED 16-10-2024
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.345/2024
DATED 27/10/2024
