Kerala High Court
Fr. Mathew Athickal vs The District Collector on 24 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:71337
WP(C) NO. 1403 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1403 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
FR. MATHEW ATHICKAL,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O. VARKEY, ATHICKAL HOUSE, NEYASSERY P.O.,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685581
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, PAINAV P.O., IDUKKI,
PIN - 685603
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IDUKKI REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,IDUKKI, PIN -
685603
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
THODUPUZHA TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA -
MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN -
685584
2025:KER:71337
WP(C) NO. 1403 OF 2025
2
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KARIMANNUR VILLAGE OFFICE, KARIMANNUR, IDUKKI,
PIN - 685581
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KARIMANNUR KRISHI BHAVAN, THODUPUZHA, KJARIMANNUR
P.O., IDUKKI, PIN - 685581
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP.
SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 24.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:71337
WP(C) NO. 1403 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 1403 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the co-owner in a possession of
6.66 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.272/23 in
Karimannur Village in Thodupuzha Taluk, covered
under Ext.P1 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.P2 application in Form
2025:KER:71337
WP(C) NO. 1403 OF 2025
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
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. In the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent it
is contended that, pursuant to the receipt of the Form-5
application, the agricultural officer has reported that
the applied property is a paddy field and is the source of
water of the village pond. It is reported that a stop
memo has been issued against the illegal conversion of
the property. If the petitioner's property is converted, it
2025:KER:71337
WP(C) NO. 1403 OF 2025
will negatively affect the ecology. Therefore, it cannot
be excluded from the data bank. Based on Annexure
R2(c) report, the Form-5 application has been rejected.
2. When the writ petition came up for
consideration on 13.08.2025, the learned Senior
Government Pleader submitted that a stop memo has
been issued against the conversion of the applied
property as it is a source of water for village pond. She
sought time to ascertain whether any proceedings
under Section 13 of the Act has been initiated.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on
instructions, submits that, even though a stop memo
was issued to the petitioner, no proceedings under
Section 13 of the Act has been initiated against him.
Nonetheless, it is submitted that the pond in the applied
2025:KER:71337
WP(C) NO. 1403 OF 2025
property is a source of water for the panchayat.
5. 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.
6. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including the decisions 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 [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
2025:KER:71337
WP(C) NO. 1403 OF 2025
12.08.2008, which are the decisive criteria to determine
whether the property is to be excluded from the data
bank.
7. 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 Agricultural 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 affect the surrounding paddy fields.
In light of the above findings, I hold that the impugned
order was passed in contravention of the statutory
2025:KER:71337
WP(C) NO. 1403 OF 2025
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 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form 5, 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.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the application
shall be disposed of within three months from the
2025:KER:71337
WP(C) NO. 1403 OF 2025
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
dkr
2025:KER:71337
WP(C) NO. 1403 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1403/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
25.05.2024
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
20.07.2024
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER
ANNEXURE R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.A5-
559/2022 DATED 05.02.2022 OF KARIMANOOR
GRAMA PANCHAYAT
ANNEXURE R2(C) KARIMANOOR AGRICULTURE OFFICER S REPORT
ANNEXURE R2(D) REJECTION PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT
