IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J.
Khalam C.A. S/o Abdul Kareem - Appellant
Versus
District Collector Ernakulam - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 17315 of 2025
Decided On : 27-05-2025
(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Rule 4(d) - Writ petition to quash order rejecting application to remove property from data bank - Petitioner’s land classified erroneously as 'nilam' despite being unsuitable for paddy cultivation - Court emphasized the need for direct inspection or satellite imagery as per Rule 4(4f) - Previous judicial pronouncements highlighted the criteria for exclusion from the data bank. (Paras 2, 5, 6, 7)
(B) Judicial Review - Non-application of mind by the authority in rejecting the application based solely on external reports without direct assessment of the property. (Paras 4, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner owns land classified as 'nilam' despite its unsuitability for agriculture, and the application to remove it from the data bank was rejected without proper inspection.
Findings of Court:
The order rejecting the application was quashed, and the authority was directed to reconsider the application with proper procedures.
Issues: The main issues were the erroneous classification of land and the authority's failure to conduct a proper assessment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the authority must directly inspect the property or obtain satellite images to make an informed decision, emphasizing the importance of proper procedure.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P6 order and direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P5 application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 58 Ares and 28 Sq.Meter of land comprised in Survey No.245/6 of Karumaloor Village, Paravoor Taluk, Ernakulam District covered by Ext.P1 title deed and Ext.P2 basic tax receipt. The petitioner’s property is a dry land and is not suitable for any agricultural operation. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'nilam' and included it in the data bank. In the said background, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application to remove the property from the data bank. The 2nd respondent, solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer/6th respondent and the recommendations of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (in short ‘LLMC’) has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P5 application by Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner’s specific is case that, his property is a converted land much prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner’s property is not suitable for paddy cultivation. There are coconut trees aged above 25 years and there are buildings in the entire locality. There is also no water body near the petitioner’s property. However, the 2nd respondent has, based on the report of the Agricultural Officer, who has stated that the property is lying as nilam and water logged and the report of the LLMC, which has recommended not to remove the property from the data bank, passed Ext.P6 order.
5. In a plethora of judicial pronouncements, this Court has held that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court 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 and others, 2021 (1) KLT 433.
6. In Rasheed C. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, 2025 KHC 1666, this Court has succinctly held that, a Form 5 application cannot be considered on the basis of the observations of the LLMC, since the said procedure is not contemplated under the Rules. The Rules only provide to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer or getting a scientific report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC).
7. A reading of Ext.P6 order substantiates that the 2nd respondent has not directly inspected the petitioner’s property or called for the satellite images as envisaged under rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the 2nd respondent, by solely relying on the recommendations made by the Agricultural Officer and the LLMC, has rejected Ext.P5 application. I find that there has been total non-application of mind in passing the impugned order. Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P6 order is liable to be quashed and the 2nd respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider Ext.P5 application afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles laid down in the aforecited decisions and the materials available on record.
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed 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 law. It would be upto to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or call for satellite images as per the procedure provided under r
The authority must directly inspect land or obtain satellite images to assess suitability for paddy cultivation before classifying it as 'nilam'.
The evaluation of land suitability for paddy cultivation must be independent and adhere to prescribed procedures, not solely rely on LLMC reports.
The court emphasized the necessity for independent findings regarding land classification and adherence to procedural rules in determining suitability for paddy cultivation.
The classification of land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules must be based on its suitability for paddy cultivation, requiring proper inspection and consideration of evide....
The court emphasized the necessity for proper inspection and application of law regarding land classification under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
The Revenue Divisional Officer must independently assess land character for classification, not rely solely on external observations.
The decision-making process regarding land classification must adhere to statutory requirements, ensuring independent assessments are conducted.
The court ruled that independent evaluation of land suitability for paddy cultivation is essential, and reliance on improper reports violates procedural requirements.
Failure to consider relevant reports and incorrect reliance on improper assessments render administrative decisions arbitrary and subject to quashing.
The court ruled that proper inspection and assessment are mandatory for classifying land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, ensuring decisions are made based on actual lan....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.