High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2025-03-12Writ petition disposed; Ext P3 quashed; 2nd res...

Stella Kurian v. The District Collector, The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Tahsildar, The Village Officer, The Agriculture Officer, The Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 20765 of 2023

Neutral Citation:2025:KER:21331

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.
Judgment Date: 2025-03-12
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; Ext P3 order quashed; 2nd respondent directed to reconsider Ext P2 application. If the petitioner submits an application with the requisite fees for satellite imagery within three weeks, the 5th respondent shall forward the request to KSREC, which shall then provide a report to the 6th respondent within one month. The 6th respondent shall submit the KSREC report to the 5th respondent, who must forward it to the 2nd respondent along with his own report. The 2nd respondent or the authorized officer shall pass fresh Form-5 orders on Ext P2 within two months, taking account of KSREC data and other materials.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed; Ext P3 quashed; 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext P2; satellite imagery to be obtained from KSREC; KSREC to report; 2nd respondent to pass fresh Form-5 orders within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Stella Kurian

Respondents

The District Collector, Collectorate, Kottayam – Kumily Road, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala Revenue Divisional Office, Mini Civil Station, Pala Bypass Road, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575
The Tahsildar, Meenachil Taluk Office, Civil Station, Ground Floor, Pala Ramapuram Road, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575
The Village Officer, Veliyannoor Village Office, Areekkara, Veliyannoor, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686634
The Agriculture Officer, Veliyannoor Krishi Bhavan, Poovakulam Karamala Road, Veliyannoor, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686662
The Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, VikAs Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN - 695033

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shakthi Prakash Muhasin
• K.M. Sukanya S.

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Preetha.K.K, Sr.G.P

Case Synopsis & Summary

Stella Kurian, owner of 30.97 acres in Survey No.425/6-1, Veliyannoor, Meenachil Taluk, files a writ petition challenging Ext P3 (dated 05.06.2023) rejecting her Form 5 application under the Kerala Paddy Land Act and removing her land from the Data Bank. She argues the order is nonspeaking, provides no reasons, and ignores critical material. Her case contends the property was reclaimed before the Paddy Land Act, and adjacent lands are reclaimed as well; KSREC satellite data showing pre-Act status was not obtained, though such data is relevant under Form-5, as clarified in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022) 7 KHC 591. The petitioner seeks quashing Ext P3, a mandamus to reconsider Ext P2 after obtaining a KSREC report, and related reliefs including dispensation with translation of vernacular documents. The petition relies on statutory requirements and scientific data to establish eligibility or ineligibility under the Act. The High Court, after hearing, found Ext P3 lacking reasons and failing to consider materials, and disposed of the petition by quashing Ext P3 and directing reconsideration of Ext P2 with KSREC data, including a timeline for obtaining satellite imagery and submitting reports, culminating in fresh Form-5 orders within two months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008Paddy Land ActSection 2(XVA) of the Paddy Land ActForm-5

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext. P3 is a nonspeaking order devoid of reasons and fails to address the material contentions raised. The application under Form-5 to remove her land from the Data Bank under the Paddy Land Act should have been decided with reference to whether the land was paddy land or a wetland as of the Act’s commencement, and with consideration of available data, including KSREC satellite imagery. The petitioner asserts that her land stood reclaimed before the Act and that the tending fact patterns (surrounding lands also reclaimed) were not considered. KSREC data showing the pre-Act status was not obtained, despite the statutory and policy imperative to use scientific data when materials are insufficient. She seeks quashing of Ext P3 and directs the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext P2 with KSREC data, and to obtain DSN satellite imagery and reports from KSREC; she also seeks dispensation from translation requirements and related reliefs, including expedited processing where possible.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent content is not fully elaborated in the judgment. The Government Pleader represented the State in court; however, the decision records only that the petition was heard and Ext P3 was found to be lacking, with the court ultimately directing reconsideration. A detailed articulation of the respondents’ arguments is not expressly stated in the text of the judgment.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala	2022 (7) KHC 591	Positive	Used by the Court to establish the principle that Form-5 applications require consideration of pre-Act status and, if needed, KSREC data; serving as a guiding standard for evaluating Ext P2/Ext P3 compliance.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Stella Kurian v. The District Collector, The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Tahsildar, The Village Officer, The Agriculture Officer, The Director, Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**2025:KER:21331** **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.** **WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1946** ## **WP(C) NO. 20765 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **STELLA KURIAN, AGED 49 YEARS W/O.CYRIAC MATHEW, H. NO. 39, MUNDATHANATHU HOUSE, VELIYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686634** **BY ADVS. SHAKTHI PRAKASH MUHASIN K.M. SUKANYA S.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM – KUMILY ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PALA BYPASS ROAD, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575** - **3 THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, GROUND FLOOR, PALA RAMAPURAM ROAD, PALA,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575** - **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELIYANNOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, AREEKKARA, VELIYANNOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686634** 2 W.P.C No. 20765 of 2023 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:21331** - **5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, VELIYANNOOR KRISHI BHAVAN, POOVAKULAM KARAMALA ROAD, VELIYANNOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686662** - **6 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **Smt.Preetha.K.K, Sr.G.P** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.C No. 20765 of 2023 3 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **2025:KER:21331** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is the owner of the property having an extent of 30.97 Ares comprised in Survey No.425/6-1 in Block No.1 of Veliyannoor Village in Meenachil Taluk, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: - “i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext P3 order and quash the same. - ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext P2 application and pass orders afresh after obtaining a report from the 6th respondent, KSREC with regard to the nature of the property as on 2008. - iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 6th respondent to file a report before the 2nd and 5th respondent with regard to nature and lie of the petitioner’s property in 2008. - iv. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents. - v. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the application submitted by the petitioner to remove the property of the petitioner from the Data Bank notified under the Kerala W.P.C No. 20765 of 2023 4 **2025:KER:21331** Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 in Form 5 as per Ext.P2, was rejected as per Ext.P3 order dated 05.06.2023, by a nonspeaking order without any reference to the contentions raised by the petitioner and even without stating the reasons for such rejection. The specific case of the petitioner is that the property of the petitioner stood reclaimed even prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter called “The Paddy Land Act”), and the surrounding properties are also reclaimed lands. The said factual aspect was not taken into account and a nonspeaking order was passed as per Ext.P3, rejecting the application. Besides, it was also contended that, the scientific data in the nature of report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) in the form of satellite images showing the status of the property prior to the enactment of the Paddy Land Act, was also not obtained. This writ petition was submitted in such circumstances. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and perusing Ext.P3 order W.P.C No. 20765 of 2023 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:21331** impugned in this case, I am of the view that, an interference is required. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P3 order does not contain any reasons on which the application of the petitioner has been rejected. Moreover, in **Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala** [2022 (7) KHC 591], this Court laid down principles relating to the procedure and the materials to be considered while deciding the application on Form-5. In paragraph No.8 the following observations are made by this Court. “8.This Court is of the view that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not justified in taking a decision on merits on the application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5. The most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation. The Revenue Divisional Officer, if he was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSREC. Ext.P8 proceedings to the extent it does not take a final decision on Form-5 application cannot stand the scrutiny of law.” W.P.C No. 20765 of 2023 **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:21331** 5. In this case, the specific case advanced by the petitioner is that, the property stood reclaimed even prior to the enactment of the Paddy Land Act. The said contention has not been adverted to in Ext.P3. No attempt has be made to examine the scientific data by obtaining the satellite images of the property as it stood prior to enactment of paddy land as well, despite the fact that, such reports could be easily obtained Therefore, Ext.P3 cannot be treated as a proper order issued in compliance of the statutory requirements as prescribed in the Paddy Land Act. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P3 order with a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application. There shall be a further direction that, in case the petitioner approaches the 5[th] respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment by submitting an application and requisite fees for obtaining the satellite images, the 5[th] respondent shall forward the same to the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, the 6[th] respondent herein, immediately on receipt of the same. W.P.C No. 20765 of 2023 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **2025:KER:21331** Thereupon, the 6[th] respondent shall submit a report to the 5[th] respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such application. On receipt of the said report, the same shall be submitted by the 5[th] respondent immediately, before the 2[nd] respondent or the authorized officer under Section 2(XVA) of the Paddy Land Act, along with his report. On receipt of the said reports, the 2[nd] respondent or the authorised officer shall pass fresh orders on the Ext P2 application in Form 5 within a period of two months, in accordance with the law, taking note of the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre and other materials. Sd/- **ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.** ## **JUDGE** rpk W.P.C No. 20765 of 2023 8 **2025:KER:21331** **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20765/2023** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.04.2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06.06.2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER**