Kerala High Court
Mini Prasad vs The District Collector Pathanamthitta on 25 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 19688 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:71674
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19688 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MINI PRASAD
AGED 59 YEARS
D/O K. CHANDRASHEKHARAN NAIR, FLAT 201 FLORENCE
HEIGHTS, ANSAL CITY, KUREEKAD, NEAR PUTHIYAKAVU
JUCTION,KANAYANNUR ,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI, KERALA, PIN -
682305
BY ADVS. SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS
SRI.JOEMON ANTONY
SHRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO
SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ANJANA P.V.
RESPONDENT/S:
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
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KAVUMBHAGAM VILLAGE OFFICE,AMBALAPPUZHA- THIRUVALLA
ROAD, PODIYADI, KAVUMBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA, KERALA,
PIN - 689102
WP(C) NO. 19688 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:71674
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
BY SMT.DEEPA V, GP
SRI.VISHNU S CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19688 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:71674
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8 Ares
of land comprised in Survey No.124/1-1 in Block No.7 in
Kavumbhagom Village, Thiruvalla 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.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 calling for the satellite pictures as
2025:KER:71674
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
[2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue
Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and
2025:KER:71674
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.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 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 recommendation of the Local
Level Monitoring Committee. 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
2025:KER:71674
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.P6 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P5 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.
2025:KER:71674
(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
NAB
2025:KER:71674
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19688/2025
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
