Kerala High Court
Muhammed Ashraf vs The Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional ... on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 17285 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:52531
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. 17285 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED ASHRAF,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. KAMMUKUTTY NAHA, PENGATTAYIL HOUSE,
PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676303
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR
SMT.P.K.MINIMOLE
SHRI.A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
SHRI.BAPPU GALIB SALAM
SHRI.G.MOTILAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB-COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR, IRUR-
THRIKANDIYOOR RD, TIRUR, KERALA, PIN - 676101
2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER PARAPPANANGADI,
PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 676303
BY SMT.PREETHA K K, SR.GP
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. 17285 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:52531
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 36.1 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.97/2-3 in Neduva Village, Thirurangadi Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 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 rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on WP(C) NO. 17285 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:52531 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 Senior 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 criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read WP(C) NO. 17285 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:52531 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 application of mind, and the same is liable to be quashed and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the WP(C) NO. 17285 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:52531 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 1st 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 expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of the receipt of the satellite WP(C) NO. 17285 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:52531 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 NAB WP(C) NO. 17285 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:52531 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17285/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 571/1999 OF SRO PARAPPANANGADI DATED 15.03.1999 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 03.04.2024 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE EXACT NATURE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE VEGETATION PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 20.01.2022 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 308/2023 DATED 02.08.2023