Kerala High Court
Ummar vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54021
WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
UMMAR,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O ABOOBACKER, MULLAPALLI HOUSE, CHATTIPARAMBA
PO, KODUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676507
BY ADV SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE
DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTRATE, COLLECTRATE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM
-, PIN - 676505
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM -, PIN - 679322
4 THE TAHSILDAR
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK OFFICE, SHANTI NAGAR,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM -, PIN - 679322
5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KURUVA KRISHI BHAVAN, VATTALLUR PO, KURUVA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 676507
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
2025:KER:54021
WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025
2
KURUVA VILLAGE OFFICE, VATTALLUR, MAKARAPARAMBA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676507
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54021
WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 1.41 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.19/3-2 in Kuruva Village, Perinthalmanna 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 ExtP2 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 3 rd respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P2 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 2025:KER:54021 WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025 4 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.
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 criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional 2025:KER:54021 WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025 5 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, 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 2025:KER:54021 WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025 6 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 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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.P2 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three 2025:KER:54021 WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025 7 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/21/7/2025 2025:KER:54021 WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20664/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT DATED 4.4.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 18.4.2023 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-9- 2024 IN W.P © NO. 27659/2024 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3 RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.10.2024 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2 ND RESPONDENT DATED 12-2- Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 20/5/2025 IN WP(C) 42141/2024