Kerala High Court
Mujeeburahman C.P vs District Collector on 21 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54030
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. 28711 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MUJEEBURAHMAN C.P,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. UNNIMOYI, CHEEDIPOTTACHEEDIPOTTA HOUSE,
CHERUVAYOOR P.O, VAZHAKKAD,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673645
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RANJITH C.
SHRI.KIRAN JOHNY
SMT.SHINY GEORGE MEKKATTUKULAM
SHRI.BINJO ANDREWS
SHRI.MAHENDRAN S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676506
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
PERINTHALMANA. MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
3 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (DM),
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(DM),
COLLECTORATE,CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
4 VILLAGE OFFICER ,
VAZHAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE ,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673634
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
VAZHAKKAD KRISHIBHAVAN,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673634
WP(C) NO.28711 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54030
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.28711 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:54030
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 16.96 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.88/7-4 in Vazhakkad Village, Kondotty 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. P6 order, the second respondent 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. WP(C) NO.28711 OF 2024 4
2025:KER:54030 He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P6 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 WP(C) NO.28711 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:54030 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. P6 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 WP(C) NO.28711 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:54030 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. P6 order is quashed.
(ii). The second 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.WP(C) NO.28711 OF 2024 7
2025:KER:54030
(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 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/21.07.25 WP(C) NO.28711 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:54030 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28711/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL10071103420/2022 DATED 18/04/2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT P3 A. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA BANK DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A. TRUE COPY OF FORM.5 APPLICATION DATED 09/09/2023 I EXHIBIT P5 A. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C).NO.7839 OF 2024 DATED 28/02/2024 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/08/2024