Kerala High Court
Subaida vs The District Collector on 1 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:57375
WP(C) NO. 46750 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 46750 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SUBAIDA,
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O. MUHAMMED ASHRAF, KONNAKKATTIL, CHELOOR,
PAZHUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679571
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676505
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,TIRUR -
THRIKANDIYOOR ROAD, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676101
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
TIRUR TALUK OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, TIRUR MINI CIVIL
BUILDING, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676101
2025:KER:57375
WP(C) NO. 46750 OF 2024
2
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
NADUVATTOM VILLAGE OFFICE, PAZHUR, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679571
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KUTTIPURAM KRISHI BHAVAN, O P RAMAN ROAD,
KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679571
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
SMT.DEEPA V., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 01.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57375
WP(C) NO. 46750 OF 2024
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 46750 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 31.70 Ares of land, comprised in Survey Nos.411/1-6, 411/3-2 and 411/4-3 in Naduvattom Village in Tirur Taluk, covered under Exts.P1 and P1(A) tax receipts. 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.P-2 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
2025:KER:57375 WP(C) NO. 46750 OF 2024 4 However, by Ext.P3 order, the authorised officer has partly 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 partly 2025:KER:57375 WP(C) NO. 46750 OF 2024 5 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.P3 order reveals that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. There is no indication in the 2025:KER:57375 WP(C) NO. 46750 OF 2024 6 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 without rendering 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 findings, I hold that the impugned order was passed in contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated due to errors of law and non- application of mind, and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5 application as per the procedure prescribed under the law.
2025:KER:57375 WP(C) NO. 46750 OF 2024 7 In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P3 order is quashed to the extent of rejecting the Form-5 application.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5, with respect to the partial rejection of the application, in accordance with the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the property or calling for the satellite pictures as provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the application shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the authorised officer opts to inspect the property personally, the application shall be disposed of within two months from the date of 2025:KER:57375 WP(C) NO. 46750 OF 2024 8 production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE dkr 2025:KER:57375 WP(C) NO. 46750 OF 2024 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46750/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.11.2022 EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.03.2023 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 06.11.2023 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2024, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KSREC DATED NIL EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER