Kerala High Court
Safaruddeen Kottaparamb vs State Of Kerala on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:58766
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23185 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SAFARUDDEEN KOTTAPARAMB,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. KOYATTY, BAITHUL RASHID,
KAYATTIYIL, OLAVANNA P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
2 RAMLA P.P.,
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O. SAFARUDDEEN KOTTAPARAMB,
BAITHUL RASHID, KAYATTIYIL, OLAVANNA P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR
SHRI.VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR
SMT.SILPA SREEKUMAR
SMT.MERIN K JIMMY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & SUB COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
OLAVANNA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
WP(C) NO.23185 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:58766
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.23185 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:58766
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025 The petitioners are the owners in possession of 8.07 Ares land comprised in Re-Survey No. 47/4A in Olavanna Village, Chevayur Taluk, covered under Ext. P1 title deed. The respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'wetland' 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 a Form 5 application under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P4 order, the third respondent has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery, as specifically mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Aggrieved by Ext. P4 order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the second WP(C) NO.23185 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:58766 respondent. By the impugned Ext. P5 order, the second respondent rejected the appeal on the ground that there is no provision to file an appeal. Exts. P4 and P5 orders are devoid of any independent consideration or finding regarding the nature and character of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008--the date the Act came into force. Exts. P4 and P5 orders are arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has been rejected without proper consideration or application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v. WP(C) NO.23185 OF 2024 5
2025:KER:58766 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 competent authority 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 merits exclusion 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 directly inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the Village Officer that the impugned order has been passed. The authorised officer has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as WP(C) NO.23185 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:58766 on the relevant date. Even though the petitioner had erroneously preferred an appeal before the second respondent, the same was also rejected by Ext. P5 order on the ground that there is no provision for filing an appeal. Ext. P4 order also substantiates that the authorised officer has not rendered any independent finding on whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that Ext. P4 order was passed in contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the impugned orders are vitiated due to errors of law and non-application of mind and are 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.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
i. Exts.P4 and P5 orders are quashed. WP(C) NO.23185 OF 2024 7
2025:KER:58766 ii. The third respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application in accordance with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in accordance with 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 personally inspect the property, the application shall be considered and disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/06.08.25 WP(C) NO.23185 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:58766 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23185/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 2694/1995 DATED 15.12.1995 OF SRO, CHALAPURAM Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 18.07.2003 REMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR THE SHOP BUILDING Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.01.2007 REMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. RDOKKD/4607/2022-C5 DATED 28.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. DCKKD/9172/2023-L12 DATED 25.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO. A4-7781/2019 DATED 22.01.2020 ISSUED BY OLAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT