Nazeer S vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3265 Ker
Judgement Date : 8 August, 2025

Kerala High Court

Nazeer S vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 August, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
                                                2025:KER:59697
WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024

                               1
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

  FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947

                     WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

         NAZEER S,
         AGED 70 YEARS
         S/O SULAIMAN, SAREENA MANZIL, OPP POLICE UARTERS,
         PATHANAPURAM P.O, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM,
         PIN - 689695


         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.NAHAS H.
         SMT.RIZWANA T.N




RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PUNALUR, PIN - 691305

    2    THE TAHASILDAR,
         TALUK OFFICE, PALLIMUKKU, PATHANAAPURAM,KOLLAM,
         PIN - 689695

    3    THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
         PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
         PALLIMUKKU PATHANAAPURAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 689695

    4    THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
         AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, PIDAVOOR, PATHANAAPURAM,
         KOLLAM, PIN - 689695
                                                          2025:KER:59697
WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024

                                      2
OTHER PRESENT:

           GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   08.08.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                2025:KER:59697
WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024

                                 3


                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of August, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 9.11 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.437/3A, 437/5A-2, 437/5B-2, 437/3-1A and 437/4A of Pathanapuram Village, Pathanapuram Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt. 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.P5 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P6 order, the authorised officer has partially rejected the application without either conducting a 2025:KER:59697 WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024 4 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 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 2025:KER:59697 WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024 5 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.P6 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 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 2025:KER:59697 WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024 6 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.

In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:

(i) Ext.P6 order partially rejecting the petitioner's Form 5 application is set aside.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 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 2025:KER:59697 WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024 7 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 production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.

The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.

SD/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/8/8/2025 2025:KER:59697 WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7462/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 913/2012 DATED 30.04.2012 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 15.10.2023 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PATHANAPURAM Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 01/09/2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ,PATHANAPURAM Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 08.10.2022 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/10/2023 BEFORE THE RDO PUNALUR