Kerala High Court
Jaseem K.K vs The District Collector on 30 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 16135 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:56434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16135 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JASEEM K.K,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.ATHRUMAN KUTTY, JAMNAS MANZIL HOUSE, PERINGOLAM
DESOM, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673571
BY ADVS. SHRI.HARISH R. MENON
SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR
SRI.A.G.PRASANTH
SMT.K.N.ABHA
SMT.ALEENA SEBASTIAN
SMT.MARY HEDWIG BABY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KUNNAMANGALAM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673571
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KUTTIKKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673008
BY SMT.PREETHA K K, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16135 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:56434
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 72 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.18/1A(35) in Kuttikkatoor Village, Kozhikode 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 an extent of 19.72 Ares of 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.P8 order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the application without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is WP(C) NO. 16135 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:56434 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. In the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent, it is stated that in the inspection that was conducted, it was confirmed that the petitioner tried to change the nature of the property illegally after 2008. The northern part of the applied property is paddy field and there is a water stream flowing across the applied land. Therefore, there is no illegality in Ext.P8 order.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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. WP(C) NO. 16135 OF 2024 4
2025:KER:56434
5. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments 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.
6. A reading of Ext.P8 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 the report of the Agricultural Officer without rendering any independent finding regarding the nature WP(C) NO. 16135 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:56434 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:
(i) Ext.P8 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd 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.WP(C) NO. 16135 OF 2024 6
2025:KER:56434
(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 NAB WP(C) NO. 16135 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:56434 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16135/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 2140/2022 OF KUNNAMANGALAM SRO DATED 11.8.2022 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT NO KL 11012803412/2023 DATED 05/05/2023, EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 THE SKETCH PREPARED BY LAND SURVEYOR EVIDENCING A LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT P4 THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE KUNNAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH EVIDENCING THE EXISTENCE OF BUILDINGS IN ALL 4 BOUNDARIES, OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.
342/12-13 DATED 28.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KUNNAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING IN THE PROPERTY EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15/07/2023 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO C7-6693/2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24/10/2022 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 955271/2023/FC DCKKD DATED 26/09/2023 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE EARTH PHOTOGRAPHS