IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 3616 OF 2025 PETITIONER:

KADEEJA, AGED 69 YEARS D/O MOHAMMED, PUTHUTHOTTIL HOUSE, PATTANITHERUVIL, ENKEKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680590 BY ADVS.

SHRI.ASOK KUMAR K.P.

SHRI.ABDUL HAMEED RAFI SHRI.RAKESH S MENON RESPONDENTS:

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRST FLOOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (DISASTER MANAGEMENT), FIRST FLOOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, ADAKKANHERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER & AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,WADAKKANCHERY KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680590

4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, WADAKKANCHERY, ENKEKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680590

5 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE SATELLITE REMOTE SENSING &

ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, ‘C’ BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033 OTHER PRESENT:

JESSY S. SALIM, GP.SMT.

SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 24.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

---------------------------------------

W.P.(C) No. 3616 of 2025 -----------------------------------------

Dated this the 24^th day of September, 2025

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession of

27.36 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No. 27/106 in Kumaranellur Village in Thalappilly 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.P7 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P9 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 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 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.P9 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