Kerala High Court
Ismayil, S/O. Sharafudheen vs The District Collector on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:55093
WP(C) NO. 30412 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 30412 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 ISMAYIL, S/O. SHARAFUDHEEN,
AGED 35 YEARS
THARADIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THALAKKAD, B P ANGADI
P.O, KATTACHIRA, THALAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676102
2 SHAHALA SHEREEN. P,
AGED 32 YEARS
W/O. ISMAYIL, THARADIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THALAKKAD,
B P ANGADI P.O, KATTACHIRA, THALAKKAD, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676102
BY ADV SMT. ARYA ASHOKAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, UP HILL,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR-
THRIKANDIYOOR ROAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
676101
3 THE THAHSILDAR (LR),
TIRUR TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION BUILDING,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THALAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE, KOLOOPALAM, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676102
2025:KER:55093
WP(C) NO. 30412 OF 2024
2
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
THALAKKAD KRISHI BHAVAN, THALAKKAD, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676102
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55093
WP(C) NO. 30412 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Exts.P6 and P7 orders and restore Ext.P5 order expeditiously.
2. The petitioners are the owners in possession of 1 Are and 67 Sq. Metres of land comprised in Survey No.186/10-9 of Thalakkad Village, Tirur Taluk covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The property is a 'converted land' and is not suitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously classified the same as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 ('Act and Rules' in short). To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. By Ext.P5 order, based on Ext.P4 report of the 5 th respondent, the 2025:KER:55093 WP(C) NO. 30412 OF 2024 4 2nd respondent/authorised officer has allowed Ext.P3 application. Surprisingly, two months after the passing of Ext.P5 order, the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P6 order and consequently Ext.P7 order. In Nikkie Varughese John v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector, Muvattupuzha [2024 (2) KHC 499], this Court has succinctly held that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no power to review his own order. Notwithstanding the above declaration of law, the 2nd respondent has passed impugned Exts.P6 and P7 orders. Ext.P6 and P7 orders are erroneous and are liable to be quashed.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent, it is candidly admitted that the petitioners' Form 5 application was allowed by Ext.P4 order. But, subsequently, the 2nd respondent received numerous complaints against the allowing of the application. The property was converted after 2008 and is a waterlogged area. Based on the said complaints and Ext.R2(b) joint committee inspection report, Exts.P6 and P7 orders were 2025:KER:55093 WP(C) NO. 30412 OF 2024 5 passed. There is no illegality in Exts.P6 and P7 orders.
4 Heard; the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
5. It is not in dispute that, Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioners was allowed by the 2 nd respondent as per Ext.P5 order, on the strength of Ext.P4 report of the 5th respondent/Agricultural Officer. In Ext.P4 report, the 5th respondent has explicitly stated that the petitioners' property is not suitable for paddy cultivation and can be excluded from the data bank.
6. However, purportedly on the basis of the complaints received from third parties, the 2 nd respondent allegedly conducted a inspection and passed Exts.P6 and P7 orders, suo motu reviewing and recalling Ext.P5 order. In Nikkie Varughese John' s case(supra) this Court has categorically held that the authorised officer has no power to review his own order. If at all the revenue authorities were aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, they should have to workedout their remedies in accordance 2025:KER:55093 WP(C) NO. 30412 OF 2024 6 with law, especially when there is no power of review conferred on the authorised officer. In view of the exposition of law in the aforecited decision, and the fact that the 2nd respondent had already allowed the petitioners' Form 5 application, I am of the view that Exts.P6 and P7 orders stand vitiated due to errors of law and are untenable.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ petition by quashing Exts.P6 and P7 orders and resurrecting Ext.P5 order. It would be upto the petitioners to seek for change of nature of the property as per the procedure contemplated under the Act and Rules. Nonetheless, it is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the revenue challenging Ext.P5 order in accordance with law.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/25/7/2025 2025:KER:55093 WP(C) NO. 30412 OF 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30412/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.
KL10042402661/2023 DATED 04-04-2023 Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PUBLISHED DATA BANK OF THALAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 27-02-2012 Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01-06-2023 Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23-06-2023 Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING FILENO.2148/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 29-07- 2023 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
RDOTIR/2246/2023-F5 DATED 07-09-2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING FILE NO.
356/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23-02-2024 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(a) True copy of the complaint Exhibit R2(b) True copy of the report submitted by the Joint Committee