Kerala High Court
Maya .T Mohan vs State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:71645
WP(C) NO. 22272 OF 2025
1
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. 22272 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MAYA .T MOHAN
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O.PRAJITH P.S, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, PUNNATHURA
WEST P.O, PUNNATHURA KARA, ETTAMANOOR VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM TALUK, PIN - 686631
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.RAJESH
SHRI.GOPAKUMAR P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -
686001
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR
MINI CIVIL STATION, PUTHENANGADY, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686001
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, ETTUMANOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686631
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
2025:KER:71645
WP(C) NO. 22272 OF 2025
2
PEROOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686637
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:71645
WP(C) NO. 22272 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
4.81 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 164/3 of
Block No.31 of Peroor Village, Kottayam 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.P4
application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P5 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
2025:KER:71645
WP(C) NO. 22272 OF 2025
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. 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
2025:KER:71645
WP(C) NO. 22272 OF 2025
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
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.P5 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
2025:KER:71645
WP(C) NO. 22272 OF 2025
Monitoring Committee, 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
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.P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form 5 application, in
accordance with the law, by either conducting a
2025:KER:71645
WP(C) NO. 22272 OF 2025
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 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
rmm/25/9/2025
2025:KER:71645
WP(C) NO. 22272 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22272/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL05032100338/2024 DATED 25.01.2024
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
Exhibit P2 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (4
IN NUMBERS) IN ORDER TO DEPICT ITS LIE
AND NATURE.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATA BANK (PAGE NO.44) PREPARED BY THE
ETTUMANOOR MUNICIPALITY WITH ITS
READABLE COPY.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
02.08.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
NO.2395/2024 DATED 10.11.2024 PASSED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
