Kerala High Court
Musthafa vs The District Collector on 18 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:53832
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
MUSTHAFA,AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. CHEKKUTTY, MAYANGOTT, 01, ANAKUZHIKKARA,
POOVATTUPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, CIVIL
STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR,KOZHIKODE,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KUTTIKKATTOOR VILLAGE,
KUTTIKKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, SC-SRI.VISHNU S.
CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:53832
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.44130 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the co-owner in possession of 9.44 Ares of land, comprised in Re-Survey No.71/1 in Kuttikattoor Village, Kozhikode 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 an 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.P4 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application, without directly inspecting the property. He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P4 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:53832
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 plethora of judicial precedents, this Court has held that, it is 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 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)). WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:53832
5. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others (2020 (2) KHC
94), a Division Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise, due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda, (2023 (6) KHC 83), holding that the prime consideration to retain a property in data bank is to ascertain whether paddy cultivation is possible in the land.
6. 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 Village Officer, the impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:53832 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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner, 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 the Form 5 application, in accordance with law, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:53832 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 rkc/18.07.25 WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:53832 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44130/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTIKKATTOOR DATED 18.11.2024 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KUTTIKKATTOOR VILLAGE DATED 24.06.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.10.2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31/05/2024