Mumthaz. A.S vs District Collector

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1100 Ker
Judgement Date : 17 July, 2025

Kerala High Court

Mumthaz. A.S vs District Collector on 17 July, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
                                                2025:KER:52919
WP(C) NO. 20313 OF 2024

                               1
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

  THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1947

                    WP(C) NO. 20313 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

         MUMTHAZ. A.S.,
         AGED 42 YEARS
         W/O. MUJEEB ABDULLA, ZULAIKHA MANZIL, CHIRIKKAL
         CHEMNAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671317


         BY ADVS.
         SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH
         SHRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR
         SMT.VANDANA MENON
         SRI.VIMAL VIJAY




RESPONDENTS:

    1    DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
         KASARAGOD CIVIL STATION COMPOUND, VIDHYA NAGAR,
         KASARAGOD., PIN - 671123

    2    REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         CIVIL STATION COMPOUND, VIDHYA NAGAR, KASARAGOD.,
         PIN - 671123

    3    TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
         KASARAGOD, TALUK OFFICE, KASARAGOD., PIN - 671121

    4    VILLAGE OFFICER,
         PERUMBALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD.,
         PIN - 671317

    5    LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
         REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI
                                                          2025:KER:52919
WP(C) NO. 20313 OF 2024

                                 2
           BHAVAN, CHEMNAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671317

     6     AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
           KRISHI BHAVAN, CHEMNAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN -
           671317

     7     CHEMNAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
           REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CHENMAD P.O.,
           KASARAGOD - 671317.


           BY ADVS.
           SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED
           SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA M.S.

           SR.GP SMT. VIDYA KURISKOSE


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   17.07.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                 2025:KER:52919
WP(C) NO. 20313 OF 2024

                                 3



                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 70.3 cents of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos. 22/10PT2, 22/10PT6, 22/12PT1 and 22/12PT2 in Perumbala Village, Kasargod Taluk. 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 a From 5 application under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, the 2nd respondent has perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 2025:KER:52919 WP(C) NO. 20313 OF 2024 4 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. Hence, Ext. P4order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.

2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the 7th respondent.

3. The petitioner's specific case is that, her 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 2025:KER:52919 WP(C) NO. 20313 OF 2024 5 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 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.P4 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, who in 2025:KER:52919 WP(C) NO. 20313 OF 2024 6 turn has relied on the recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, 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 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.P4order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 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.

2025:KER:52919 WP(C) NO. 20313 OF 2024 7

(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider the Form 5 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 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 rmm/17/7/2025 2025:KER:52919 WP(C) NO. 20313 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20313/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND THODU.

Exhibit P2 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND TARRED ROAD.

Exhibit P3 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND TARRED ROAD.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING FORM 5 APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 09.10.2023.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT GRANTING PERMISSION TO ONE SHAMEER P FOR CONVERSION OF THE LAND DATED 07.05.2024.