Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34932
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
SREEJITH K.S. – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 36639 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.SANDESH RAJA
For the Respondents: SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
The court found that land classification must be based on suitability for cultivation, emphasizing the need for thorough investigation and application of judicial principles.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 - Rule 4(4d) - Classification of land - Petitioner challenged the rejection of application to exclude property classified as paddy land - Respondent's order quashed due to lack of direct inspection. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 6)
(B) Judicial precedence - Courts stressed that classification depends on suitability for paddy cultivation as per law - Prior orders regarding adjacent properties not considered. (Paras 4, 7)
Facts of the case:
The property is erroneously classified as paddy land, despite being unsuitable for such cultivation. The respondents failed to provide adequate basis for their decision, neglecting to inspect the property or consider relevant prior orders.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was held to be arbitrary and without proper examination, requiring a fresh assessment by the authorized officer as per regulations.
Issues: Whether the land's classification as paddy land was valid based on its actual condition and prior judicial determinations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of direct inspection and proper consideration of the land’s current condition when classifying properties under conservation laws.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to classification of land as paddy land. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's property classification issue and erroneous government orders. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court requires inspection for validating land classification. (Para 4) |
| 4. impugned order lacks direct evidence assessment. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3 Ares and 48 sq. metres of land comprised in Survey Nos. 300/14-3, 300/14-2, 300/4-3 and 300/8-3 in Aluva East Village, Aluva Taluk, covered under Ext.P3 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as ‘paddy land’ and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the impugned Ext.P8 order, the 2nd respondent/authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P4 application, without directly inspecting the property. Even though he had called for Ext.P7 report from the 6th respondent, the same has not been considered in Ext.P8 order. Moreover, the 2nd respondent has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the exclusion of the property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. Similarly, by Exts.P9 and P10 orders, 2nd respondent has allowed the Form 6 applications filed by the adjacent property owners. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of a similar order.
Hence, Ext. P8 order may be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner’s specific case is that, his property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously classified in the data bank as paddy land. Even though the petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application, to exclude the property from the data bank, the same has been rejected by the authorised officer without any application of mind.
4. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this Court has emphatically held that, it is the 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 )).
5. Ext.P8 order establishes that the authorised officer has not directly inspected the property. He has passed the impugned order based on the reports of the Agricultural officer/4th respondent, who in turn has relied on the recommendations of Local Level Monitoring Committee.
In Ext.P7 report of the 6th respondent, it is specially mentioned that the property was observed under fallow land in the data of 2008. The data of 2016 shows that the property is under scattered vegetation and in the data of 2022, the property is under vegetation/plantation with a building/structure towards south side.
6. In Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others ( 2020 (2) KHC 94 ), a Division Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise, due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda , ( 2023 (6) KHC 83 ), holding tha
