IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 21ST BHADRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 14365 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S: PRASEETHA.P., AGED 51 YEARS W/O. DAYAL, PRAMEELALAYAM, NEAR AARON U.P.SCHOOL, PAPPINISEREI.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670561 BY ADV SMT.K.SEENA RESPONDENT/S:

1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R)/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670002

2 THE TAHSILDAR (LR), THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101

3 THA VILLAGE OFFICER, PAPPINISSERI VILLAGE OFFICE, KEECHERI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670561 *4 ADDL.R4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER PAPPINISSERI KRISHI BHAVAN, PAPPINISSERI.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT -IS IMPLEADED AS THE ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 12.09.2025 IN 2/2025.

OTHER PRESENT:

GP SRI K M FAIZAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J.

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

WP(C) No. 14365 OF 2025 -----------------------------------------

Dated this the 12^th day of September, 2025 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in possession of 9.72 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.268/136 in Pappinisseri Village, Kannur Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt. The property 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.P3 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without directly inspecting the property 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.P4 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 had relied on the recommendations of the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The authorised officer has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no finding whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above findin