Kerala High Court
Shahul Hameed S vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54882
WP(C) NO. 14762 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. 14762 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SHAHUL HAMEED S,
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O.SULAIMAN RAWTHER,5/269,‘ ANEESH',
ODUVAYUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SRI.SREEJITH SREENATH
SMT.K.V.RAJESWARI
SMT.RINCY KHADER
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIDUTH
NAGAR, PARAKUNNAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678002
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KODUVAYUR P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678501
GP.SMT.DEEPA V.,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54882
WP(C) NO. 14762 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 6.57 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.104/30 and 664/34 of Koduvayur-I Village, Chittur Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land and is unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules', for brevity). To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P5 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a 2025:KER:54882 WP(C) NO. 14762 OF 2024 3 personal inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008 - the date the Act came into force. The impugned order, therefore, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's principal contention is that the applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected the same without proper consideration or application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments 2025:KER:54882 WP(C) NO. 14762 OF 2024 4 of this Court - including the decisions 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 [2021 (1) KLT 433] - that the authorised officer is obliged to assess the nature, lie and character of the land and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property is to be excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P5 order reveals that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. There is no indication in the order that the authorised officer has personally inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has merely acted upon 2025:KER:54882 WP(C) NO. 14762 OF 2024 5 the report of the Agricultural Officer, who in turn has stated to have perused the satellite pictures received from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC), without rendering any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no finding whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that the impugned order was passed in contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated due to errors of law and non-application of mind, and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5 application as per the procedure prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:
2025:KER:54882 WP(C) NO. 14762 OF 2024 6
(i) Ext. P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application, in accordance with the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the property or calling for the satellite pictures as provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the application shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the authorised officer opts to inspect the property personally, the application shall be disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/25/7/2025 2025:KER:54882 WP(C) NO. 14762 OF 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14762/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 942/2009 DATED 20-04-2009 OF S.R.O.KODUVAYUR Exhibit P2 . TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 03-04-2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KODUVAYUR-I VILLAGE Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION DATED 09-02-2022 ALONG WITH A REPORT OF THE KSREC Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.RDOPKD/2329/2021 DATED 12-12-2022