Kerala High Court
Muhammed Shafi vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52563
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 43043 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SHAFI,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. SHAMSUDEEN, RESIDING AT AJMAL NIVAS,
PANAYAMCHERRY, ANCHAL P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691306
BY ADV SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691013
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691305
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, PUNALUR,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691506
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, EDAMULAKKAL,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691321
6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S CONVENOR-AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, EDAMULAKKAL, EDAYAM P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691532
WP(C) NO. 43043 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:52563
7 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN,EDAMULAKKAL, ARACKAL, EDAYAM P.O KOLLAM
DISTRICT ( IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16.07.2025
IN I.A NO. 2 OF 2025 )
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 43043 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:52563
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 6.55 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 66/6 in Block No. 29 of Edumulakkal Village, Punalur Taluk, covered under Ext. P1 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext. P4 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the impugned Ext. P5 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext. P4 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not WP(C) NO. 43043 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:52563 rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P5 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's specific case is that, his property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously classified in the data bank as paddy land. Even though the petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application, to exclude the property from the data bank, the same has been rejected by the authorised officer without any application of mind.
4. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this Court has emphatically held that, it is the nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant WP(C) NO. 43043 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:52563 criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court 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 and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext. P5 order establishes that the authorised officer has not directly inspected the property or called for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of the property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied that the impugned order has been passed without any WP(C) NO. 43043 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:52563 application of mind, and the same is liable to be quashed and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
(i). Ext. P5 order is quashed.
(ii). The third respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext. P4 application, in accordance with law. It would be up to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or call for satellite images, as per the procedure provided under Rule 4(4f), at the expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Ext. P4 application, in accordance with law and as WP(C) NO. 43043 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:52563 expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of the receipt of the satellite images. In case he directly inspects the property, he shall dispose of the application within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/16.07.25 WP(C) NO. 43043 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:52563 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43043/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBITP1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO. KL-
02060806060/2023 DATED 07.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.80662422 DATED 23.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK PREPARED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT AND NOTIFIED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE NO.595/02/GP-30 DATED 19.03.2012 SHOWING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND OWNED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 DATED 03.10.2023 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE NO.1330/2024 DATED 01.11.2024 EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOS SHOWING THE PRESENT POSITION OF LAND OWNED BY THE PETITIONER IN RE SURVEY NO.66/6 IN BLOCK NO.29 OF EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE