SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
C.S.DIAS, J.
Dr.Satheeshsankarannamboothiri - Appellant 
Versus 
State Of Kerala - Respondent 
WP(C) No. 34449 of 2024
Decided on : 09-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.P.HARIDAS, SHRI.BIJU HARIHARAN, SMT.SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW, SRI.P.C.SHIJIN, SMT.ROSHIN MARIAM JACOB, SMT.PRAJISHA O.K.
For the Respondent: SR GP SMT PREETHA K K

The court emphasized the necessity of independent assessment in land classification under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, rejecting reliance solely on reports.

Headnote:(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 - Rule 4(4d) - Application for exclusion from data bank - The 2nd respondent's rejection of the application was quashed by the court for lack of independent assessment and failure to consider relevant factors, including the nature of the land and its suitability for paddy cultivation. (Paras 1, 4, 8, 12, 14)

(B) Land classification - The court emphasized that mere fallowness does not classify land as paddy/wetland; independent evaluations must be conducted rather than relying solely on reports. (Paras 8, 10, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of her application to exclude her land from the data bank, arguing that it was misclassified as paddy land despite being fallow and unsuitable for cultivation.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the 2nd respondent failed to adhere to its earlier directives and did not conduct a proper independent assessment of the land's status.

Issues: The main issue was whether the land in question should be classified as paddy land and the legality of the rejection of the Form 5 application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the 2nd respondent's order was ex facie illegal due to lack of independent evaluation and reliance on insufficient evidence, necessitating a fresh reconsideration of the application.

Result: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order quashed, and the property declared unsuitable for paddy cultivation.

Table of Content
1. independent evaluation is essential for proper land classification. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT :

C.S.DIAS, J.

The petitioner and her late sister are the co-owners of 4.71 ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.109/1 (old Survey No.237/3) of Ettumanoor Village, covered under Ext.P1 sale deed. The property lies approximately 250 meters east of the Ettumanoor junction. Originally, the property had an extent of 32.77 ares, out of which the 1st respondent had acquired 43 cents for the Ettumanoor–Erattupetta State Highway and subsequently 12 ares for the Ettumanoor bypass project. Although the property is a converted land, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as paddy land and included it in the data bank. Consequently, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P9 application in Form 5 under Rule 4 (4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 ('Act and Rules', for brevity), to exclude the property from the data bank. However, the 2nd respondent rejected the application by Ext.P11 order, which was challenged before this Court. By Ext.P13 judgment, the 2nd respondent was directed to reconsider the application, taking into account the legal principles in the decisions referred in the judgment and the satellite images of the property. Contrary to the explicit directions, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned Ext.P15 order without due application of mind. The impugned order is ex facie illegal and is liable to be quashed.

2. The 2nd respondent in his statement has contended that, as per the site inspection conducted by the Agricultural Officer, the applied property is situated at the signal point of the Ettumanoor –Pala and Peroor– Pattithanam roads. The land lies at a lower elevation than the adjoining roads and is characterised as barren land filled with grass, colocasia, and without trees. Based on the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC’) recommendations, the Form 5 application was rejected. In compliance with the directions in Ext.P13 judgment, the Agricultural Officer obtained a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (‘KSREC’, for brevity). There is no illegality in the impugned order.

3. Heard, Sri. P. Haridas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.K. Preetha, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

4. By Ext.P11 order the 2nd respondent had rejected the Form 5 application on the finding that the property is low-lying and fallow, and there is no material evidence to establish that the property was converted prior to 12.08.2008, i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act. By Ext.P13 judgment, this Court quashed Ext.P11 order in the following lines:

“5. Petitioner’s application in Form 5 of the Rules was rejected, relying on the Agricultural Officer’s report. The said report stated that petitioner’s land need not be excluded from the data bank. Petitioner asserted that the surrounding areas are well- developed with multiple buildings and also that the impugned order has not referred to the suitability for cultivation as a paddy land.

6. In the decision in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591] and in Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], this Court had observed that the RDO cannot merely follow the report of the Agricultural Officer or the LLMC without any independent assessment of the status of the land. This Court had also observed that while considering an application filed under Form 5, the Authority must consider whether the removal of the property from the data bank will affect paddy cultivation in the land and also whether it will affect the nearby paddy fields. Similarly, in the decision in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 KHC Online 592] it has been observed that when the competent authority considers a Form-5 application, the predominant consideration should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from data bank is one where pad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top