Kerala High Court
Sainaba Muhammed vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 7 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:59231
WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 SAINABA MUHAMMED,
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. K.S. MUHAMMED, KOOTTAYI HOUSE, RAYONPURAM
P.O., NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683543
2 MUHAMMAD K.S.,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. SULAIMAN, KOOTTAYI HOUSE, RAYONPURAM P.O.,
NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683543
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.N.HARIDAS
SHRI.SAIFUDEEN T.S
SMT.B.SHAMEERA
SMT.NIMISHAMOL SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FIRST
FLOOR, KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682001
2025:KER:59231
WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025
2
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R.),
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
NEDUMBASSERY KRISHI BHAVAN, MEKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683589
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
NEDUMBASSERY KRISHI BHAVAN, MEKKAD P.O.,ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683589
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE, MEKKAD, NEDUMBASSERY,
ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683589
SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 07.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59231
WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.12340 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are husband and wife. They are the owner in possession of 0.39 Ares and 1.21 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey Nos.82/4 and 82/4-2 respectively in Nedumbassery Village in Aluva Taluk, covered under Exts.P1 and P2 possession certificates. The properties are converted land and are unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously classified the properties 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 properties from the data bank, 2025:KER:59231 WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025 4 the petitioners had submitted Exts.P3 and P4 applications in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Exts.P7 and P8 orders, the authorised officer has summarily 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 orders are 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 orders, therefore, are arbitrary and unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' principal contention is that the applied properties are not cultivable paddy field but are converted plots. Nonetheless, the properties have 2025:KER:59231 WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025 5 been incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the Form 5 applications, 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 Exts.P7 and P8 orders reveal 2025:KER:59231 WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025 6 that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. There is no indication in the orders that the authorised officer has personally inspected the properties or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has merely acted upon the reports of the Agricultural Officer, who in turn relied on the recommendation of the LLMC. He acted 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 properties would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that the impugned orders were 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.
2025:KER:59231 WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025 7 Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5 applications as per the procedure prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Exts.P7 and P8 order are quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5, in accordance with the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the properties or calling for the satellite pictures as provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioners.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the applications 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 properties personally, the 2025:KER:59231 WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025 8 applications shall be disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners. The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE dkr 2025:KER:59231 WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12340/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 10.04.2023 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, NEDUMBASSERY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 10.04.2023 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, NEDUMBASSERY TO THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.06.2020 ALONG WITH THE ENDORSEMENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DIRECTLY BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 11.06.2020 WITH THE ENDORSEMENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C).NO.19084 OF 2024 DATED 18.07.2024 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CON.CASE (C) NO.3223/2024 DATED 25.01.2025 SANS ENCLOSURES EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 05.01.2022 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 04.11.2023