Kerala High Court
Bharathan Ramanathan vs State Of Kerala on 12 November, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024
1
2025:KER:87370
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40252 OF 2024
PETITIONER(S):
BHARATHAN RAMANATHAN,
AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.RAMANATHAN, KOLAZY MADOM,
KOLAZHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680010
BY ADVS.
SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS
SMT.E.U.DHANYA
SRI.RAJITH DAVIS
SMT.N.S.SHAMILA
SMT.CHINJU P. JOYIES
RESPONDENT(S):
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 COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
4 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R),
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN, KOLAZHY, THRISSUR DT.,,
PIN - 680010
W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024
2
2025:KER:87370
6 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KOLAZHY, THRISSUR DT.,, PIN - 680010
BY ADV.:
GP, SRI JANARDHANA SHENOY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024
3
2025:KER:87370
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i) To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing Ext.P12 order as unjust, illegal and arbitrary.
ii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the 4th respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application based on the factual findings already recorded in Ext.P4 Order.
iii) To declare that the petitioner's property with Survey No.231/8 of Kolazhy Village in Thrissur District is not a paddy land and therefore shall not be included in the Data Bank.
iv) To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing Ext.P1 Data Bank to the extend it includes the petitioner's property with Survey No.231/8 of Kolazhy Village in Thrissur Taluk of Thrissur District;
v) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 4th respondent to pass orders removing the petitioner's property with Survey No.231/8 of Kolazhy village from Ext.P1 Data Bank Register and to issue such necessary procedures and notifications ;
vi) To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing Ext.P5 order as unjust, illegal, W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024 4 2025:KER:87370 arbitrary and without any authority of law.
vii) To grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case"
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of 19.80 Ares of land in Survey No.231/8 of Kolazhy Village in Thrissur Taluk of Thrissur District. According to the petitioner, the land owned by him is in converted stage for decades. It is also the case of the petitioner that there are age old coconut trees and other trees in the property. The property is surrounded by a compound wall is the further submission. In draft data bank, the land was included as "tharisu' (fallow land). But in Ext.P1 data bank, the land was included as paddy land and the same was published. Therefore, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 application in Form 5 for correction of Data Bank register.
3. The petitioner filed WP(C) No.10974/2021 before this Court for early disposal of Ext.P2 application and this Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024 5 2025:KER:87370 application within a time frame. But as per Ext.P4 order, the application was rejected mainly for the reason that the proceedings under Section 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'Act 2008') were initiated against the petitioner.
The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 order again before this Court and this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment directed the RDO to reconsider the matter. Thereafter again the application was rejected as per Ext.P12 relying the report of the Agricultural Officer. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is coming before this Court for the third time. The first order passed in Form 5 application is Ext.P4. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P4 order:
"വിചാരണയിൽ ഉന്നയിച്ച വാദങ്ങൾ പരിശോധിക്കാനായി 12-08- 2021 തിയ്യതിയിൽ അപേക്ഷാവസ്തു നേരിട്ട് സ്ഥല പരിശോധന നടത്തി. വർഷങ്ങളായി സമീപ പ്രദേശങ്ങളിൽ ഒന്നും നെൽകൃഷി നടക്കുന്നില്ലെന്ന് W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024 6 2025:KER:87370 ബോദ്ധ്യപ്പെട്ടു. പരിസരവാസികളോട് അന്വേഷിച്ചതിലും 2008 കാലഘട്ടത്തിന് മുമ്പായി നെൽകൃഷി നടന്നിട്ടില്ലെന്നും കൃഷി പ്രായോഗികമല്ലെന്നും അറിയുന്നു. ടി ഭൂമിയുടെ തെക്കേ അതിരിൽ പുരയിടങ്ങളും തെക്ക്, വടക്ക്, പടിഞ്ഞാറ് അതിർത്തികൾ മതിൽ കെട്ടി തിരിച്ചതും അങ്ങിങ്ങായി തെങ്ങുകളുള്ളതുമായി കാണുന്നു. അതിർത്തിയിലുള്ള ഭൂമിയിൽ നിന്നും ഉദ്ദേശം 1½ മീറ്റർ ഉയരത്തിലാണ് പ്രസ്തുത ഭൂമിയുള്ളത്. വടക്കേ അതിരിൽ 4 മീറ്റർ വീതിയിൽ ഒരു വെള്ളച്ചാൽ കാണുന്നു. ആയതിനാൽ നീരൊഴുക്ക് തടസ്സമുള്ളതായി കാണുന്നില്ല. ടി സ്ഥലം കരട് ഡാറ്റാ ബാങ്കിൽ നികത്ത് പുരയിടമായി രേഖപ്പെടുത്തിയിരുന്നതും final data bank - ൽ നിലമായി രേഖപ്പെടുത്തിയതുമാണ്. എന്നാൽ വിജ്ഞാപനം നടത്തി പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ചതിൽ ഡാറ്റാ ബാങ്കിൽ ഉൾപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ളതുമാണ്.
എന്നാൽ അനധികൃതമായി നിലം നികത്തിയതിൻ്റെ പേരിൽ ജില്ലാ കളക്ടർ സെക്ഷൻ 13 പ്രകാരമുള്ള നടപടി സ്വീകരിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതാണെന്ന് വിലയിരുത്തി ലോക്കൽ ലെവൽ മോണിറ്ററിംഗ് മുമ്പാകെ സമർപ്പിച്ച ഫോറം 5 അപേക്ഷ നിരസിച്ചതായി കാണുന്നു.
ടി സ്ഥലം പൂർവ്വ സ്ഥിതിയിലാക്കുവാൻ ബഹുമാനപ്പെട്ട ജില്ലാ കളക്ടറുടെ സെക്ഷൻ 13 ഉത്തരവ് നിലവിലുള്ള സാഹചര്യത്തിലും ടി ഉത്തരവിനെതിരെ ബഹുമാനപ്പെട്ട കൃഷി വകുപ്പ് സെക്രട്ടറി മുമ്പാകെ അപേക്ഷകൻ്റെ റിവിഷൻ പെറ്റീഷൻ നിലവിലുള്ളതിനാലും അപേക്ഷകൻ സമർപ്പിച്ച Form 5 അപേക്ഷ അനുവദിക്കുവാൻ നിർവ്വാഹമില്ലാത്തതിനാൽ നിരസിച്ച് ഉത്തരവാകുന്നു."
6. Challenging Ext.P4 order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.34247/2022.
This Court, as per Ext.P6 judgment, set aside Ext.P4 order with the following directions:
"7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 Form-5 application seeking to remove W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024 7 2025:KER:87370 his land from Data Bank. Ext.P2 was filed on 30.03.2021. The respondents would submit that there was already a proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, 2008 against the owner of the land for illegal conversion by filling up of paddy land.
8. This Court has considered an identical issue in W.P.(C) No.28276 of 2021. After considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that the mere pendency of Section 13 proceedings or a revision proceedings based on Section 13 order cannot be a ground not to entertain an application invoking Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. Ext.P6 order therefore cannot stand the scrutiny of law.
9. In the circumstances, Ext.P6 order is set aside. The 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, without regard to pendency of any Section 13 proceedings or revision proceedings arising therefrom.
The writ petition is disposed of as above."
7. Now again the Form 5 application was rejected as per Ext.P12 order, mainly relying the report of the Agricultural Officer. The KSREC report is produced as Ext.P11. It will be better to extract the observations and conclusion in Ext.P11 report:
W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024 82025:KER:87370 "OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2007, 2010, 2016 and 2022 for the survey plot.
As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 231/8 was observed as paddy land. The plot bordered by a water body in north was observed as fallow land in 2007 data. The data of 2010 shows the plot under vegetation cover and mixed vegetation/plantation/trees towards south. The data of 2016 shows the plot under scattered vegetation and a new pathway/road towards north side. The data of 2022 shows the plot under vegetation cover."
8. From Ext.P11, it is clear that the plot bordered by water body in north was observed as fallow land in 2007 data. This Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others [2020 (2) KHC 94], observed like this:
"22. Going by the definition of wetland, we are of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the characteristic features and requirement as is provided under Act, 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well as report of KSREC, the nodal W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024 9 2025:KER:87370 agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is also significant to note that from the definition of wetland under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSREC is not disputed by the Residents Association. Merely because the 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 termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. That apart on a query made by us, counsel on either side submitted that, the properties in question have access from the National Highway from Kochi to Coimbatore and by the side of Kochi Metro line, which are also admittedly developed areas with large number of residential, commercial and multi utility buildings apart from various educational and religious institutions, thus having no scope for any paddy cultivation.
23. However, the alternative argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the Residents Association is relying upon Ext.P6 and Ext.P13 revenue record filed in the respective writ petitions that the property was recorded as paddy field. Therefore, the petitioner Residents Association is not entitled to blow hot and cold at the same time contending that the land is wetland in contemplation of the provisions of the Act, 2008. The said aspect is also clear from the report of the KSREC. In that view of the matter, the contention W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024 10 2025:KER:87370 advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the Residents Association that the property in accordance with the report of Sub Collector is wetland, cannot be sustained under law. Mere low lying or a fallow land can never be considered and treated as wetland as per Act, 2008, unless as said earlier, it is having the characteristic features as defined under the Act. That being the factual and legal situation, the contention that the properties in question are wetlands as per Act, 2008 has no foundation or basis. It is also explicit from the satellite pictures produced along with the report of KSREC that, in between the properties constructed with buildings is Kochi to Shornur railway line. Therefore, it is also evident that, there is no existing aquatic systems in order to treat the same as wetland as per the provisions of Act, 2008.
25. Therefore, it is explicit and clear that from the date of introduction of Act, 2008 i.e., 12/08/2008 onwards, a paddy field cannot be converted otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. Which thus also means, Act, 2008 prohibits conversion of paddy land, only if the property in question was included in the data bank constituted for the purpose under the Act. Admittedly the properties in question are not included in the data bank constituted under Act, 2008. It is also clear from the report of the KSREC that, though the properties in question were paddy field in the toposheet of 1967, in the toposheet of 2008 onwards the properties in Sy.No.104/1 is shown as lying W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024 11 2025:KER:87370 fallow with mixed vegetation etc. etc. and the properties situated in Sy.No.104/2 is shown as lying fallow with mixed vegetation / plantations and buildings / structures towards the eastern side. Accordingly, it is clear that the filling up of the property was done prior to the introduction of Act, 2008."
9. Similarly in Sudheesh U. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KHC 505]. this Court observed like this:
"5. Another reason stated for rejecting the application is that the land is lying as fallow. Paddy land is defined in S.2(xii) of the Act, 2008 as follows:
"2(xii). 'paddy land' means all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals;"
Going by the definition in S.2(xii) of "paddy land" in the Act, 2008, to bring in a land within the definition of paddy land, it should be suitable for paddy cultivation, but uncultivated and left fallow. Just for the reason that the property is left fallow, the land cannot be brought within the definition of paddy land but the Revenue Divisional Officer should be satisfied that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation and left fallow and therefore only on satisfaction of the said twin conditions that a land could be treated as paddy land coming under W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024 12 2025:KER:87370 the definition of S.2(xii) of the Act, 2008. This Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam, 2020 (2) KHC 94 has held that only for the reason that property is lying as fallow, the same cannot be termed as paddy land or wetland under the Act, 2008. A perusal of Ext.P2 order reveals that no such consideration was done by the 1st respondent while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. The stand taken in the counter affidavit that from the apparent appearance of the property it is a paddy land will only reflect total non application of mind and the casual way in which the application submitted by the petitioner was considered."
10. While considering an application under Form 5, the question to be decided is whether the property is cultivable with paddy as on the date. There is no such finding in the impugned order. Moreover, a perusal of the KSREC report, it is clear that the property is a fallow land as on 2007. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P12 order is to be set aside and the matter is to be remand back again to the authorised officer to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations in this judgment.
W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024 132025:KER:87370 Therefore, this Writ Petition(C) is disposed of with the following directions:
1. Ext.P12 order is set aside.
2. The 4th respondent / authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 Form 5 application, in the light of the observations in this judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
nvj
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 12.11.2025
Judgment dictated 12.11.2025
Draft Judgment placed 15.11.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 17.11.2025
W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024
14
2025:KER:87370
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40252/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF KERALA
GAZETTE DATED 21.01.2021 SHOWING THE PETITIONERS LAND IN DATA BANK REGISTER OF KOLAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT Exhibit P2 A COPY OF FORM.5 APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 30.03.2021 Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.05.2021 IN WPC NO.10974/2021 Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1-7023/2021 OF THE RDO DATED 24.08.2021 REJECTING EXT.P2 FORM.5 APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KLY 30/2021-22 DATED 25.06.2021 OF CONVENOR OF THE LLMC Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2022 IN W.P(C) NO.34247/2022 Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.12.2022 PREFERRED BEFORE THE RDO Exhibit P8 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.01.2023 PREFERRED BEFORE THE RDO REQUESTING TO GRANT A PERSONAL HEARING Exhibit P9 A COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL BEFORE THE RDO AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING Exhibit P10 A COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.D1-7023/2021 OF THE RDO DATED 13.01.2023 DEMANDING PRODUCTION OF THE KSREC SATELLITE DATA Exhibit P11 A COPY OF THE KSREC SATELLITE DATA INFORMATION NO.A-172/ 2015/KSREC/O03200/23 DATED 02.02.2023 THAT THE 6TH RESPONDENT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER PRODUCED BEFORE THE RDO Exhibit P12 A COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1-7023/2021 DATED 04.03.2023 THROUGH WHICH THE 3RD RESPONDENT RDO REJECTED THE FORM.5 APPLICATION W.P.(C) No.40252 of 2024 15 2025:KER:87370 Exhibit P13 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.08.2022 IN WPC NO.28276/2021 WITH RESPECT TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P14 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1-7022/2021 DATED 26.09.2022 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P15 A COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE NO.711/22 DATED 29.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER; KOLAZHY //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE