Kerala High Court
Dr. K. Aboobacker vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 10069 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:48949
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 10069 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
DR. K. ABOOBACKER,AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED HAJI, KALLAI HOUSE, MONGAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673642
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
SMT.R.SHABANA
SHRI.NAZEER HUZAIN.H
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHANTHI NAGAR,
PERUNTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
2 THE TAHSILDAR,PEURNTHALMANNA, TALUK OFFICE, SHANTHI
NAGAR , PERUNTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (LLMC),
MORAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
MORAYUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673642
4 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN, MORAYUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673642
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10069 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:48949
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 10069 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 11 Ares of land, comprised in Survey No.468/24 in Morayur 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.P6 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.P8 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P6 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for 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. Hence, Ext.P8 order is illegal and arbitrary, and WP(C) NO. 10069 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:48949 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 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 WP(C) NO. 10069 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:48949 Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext.P8 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, who in turn has relied on the observations made by the Local Leval Monitoring Committee, 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:
WP(C) NO. 10069 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:48949
(i) Ext.P8 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P6 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.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Ext.P6 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 rkc/04.07.25 WP(C) NO. 10069 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:48949 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10069/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12/04/2024 ISSUED BY THEVILLAGE OFFICER, MORAYUR Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 04/10/2023 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL Exhibit P4 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE LAND AND THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION MAP ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ON 19.10.2023 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION DATED 14.07.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 04.03.2024 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/03/2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER UNDER FORM 5 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 8886 OF 2024 DATED 07.03.2024