IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 9030 OF 2023 PETITIONER:

ARTHASASTHRA VENTURES (INDIA) LLP, SREESHYLAM BUILDINGS, VIVEKODAYAM SCHOOL LANE, THRISSUR. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. ARUN SHANKAR, PIN - 680001 BY ADVS.

SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS SMT.E.U.DHANYA SMT.SWATHY A.P. SMT.N.S.SHAMILA SRI.RAJITH DAVIS RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOLAZHY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680010

5 AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOLAZHY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680010

6 ADDL R6. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR) CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR.

(ADDITIONAL R6 IS IMPLEADER AS PER ORDER DATED

29.10.2024 IN IA 2/2024)

SR GP SMT PREETHA K K THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

11.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P19 order and direct the 3^rd respondent to re-consider Ext.P12 application (Form 6) submitted under Section 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules framed thereunder (‘Act and Rules’ in short).

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 19 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.219/7 of Kolazhy Village, Thrissur District, covered by sale deed No.1874/2013 of the Thrissur Sub Registry Office. The petitioner’s property is a converted land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the same as ‘paddy land’ and included it in the data bank. By Ext.P10 proceedings, the 3^rd respondent had excluded the petitioner's property from the data bank. However, the petitioner’s property was notified as paddy land in the revenue records. Consequently, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P12 application before the 3^rd respondent to change the nature of the land in the revenue records. By Ext.P14 judgment, this Court directed the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P12 application, untrammeled by any findings or observations in Exts.P3, P4 and P11 orders. Despite the specific directions in the said judgment, by the impugned Ext.P19 order, the 3^rd respondent has held that the nature of the petitioner's property cannot be changed in the revenue records. Ext.P19 is diametrically against the findings in Ext.P10 order. In fact, the very same 3rd respondent has allowed the Form 5 application by Ext.P10 order, finding that the petitioner's property is not suitable for paddy cultivation, there are no other adjacent lands with paddy cultivation and the petitioner's property is bounded by compound walls. Therefore, the findings in Ext.P19 order, is untenable. Moreover, the 3^rd respondent has relied on the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also called for a report from the Agricultural Officer, which is not contemplated under the Rules. There has been total non application of mind in passing Ext. P19 order. Therefore, Ext.P19 may be quashed.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. Despite the orders dated 16.03.2023, 24.05.2023, 21.08.2024, 10.09.2024 and 22.01.2025, the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. Therefore, it is assumed that the respondents have no counter affidavit to be filed in the case.

5. It is not in dispute that, by Ext.P10 proceedings, the 3^rd respondent had allowed the petitioner's Form 5 application and excluded the property from the data bank. In Ext.P10, the 3^rd respondent had found that the petitioner's property is not suitable for paddy cultivation. Consequently, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P12 application to