Kerala High Court
Shajahan A vs Deputy Collector on 1 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:47909
WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SHAJAHAN A.,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RAHUMAN, KAITHARAVILAKAM, AMBALLUR,
KAZHAKKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.,
PIN - 695582.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DINOOP P.D.
SHRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
SMT.RICHU HANNA RANJITH
SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
(REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695541.
2 VILLAGE OFFICER,
KAZHAKOOTTAM VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DIST., PIN - 695582.
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KAZHAKOOTTAM AGRICULTURAL OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., PIN - 695582.
2025:KER:47909
WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.JESSY S.SALIM, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 01.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:47909
WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8.40 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.98/20 in Block No.11 in Kazhakoottam Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 gift deed. 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.P3 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 authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P3 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He 2025:KER:47909 WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024 4 has also not rendered any independent finding 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 2025:KER:47909 WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024 5 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 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 2025:KER:47909 WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024 6 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 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 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P3 application, in accordance with law. It would be up to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or call for 2025:KER:47909 WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024 7 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.P3 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 dkr 2025:KER:47909 WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40006/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DATED 22/05/1980 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P-1.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 3/08/2022 ISSUED FROM KAZHAKKOOTTAM VILLAGE OFFICE IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P-2 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 3/11/2022 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P-3.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
4/2022/742769-I 4 (DDIS) DATED 21/08/2023