Kerala High Court
Asmabi T vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 7 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 42281 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:49726
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 42281 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ASMABI T.,
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O ABDUL LATEEF, THAZHATHAYIL PATTATHANAM, MANNUR,
KADALUNDI, MANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -
673328
BY ADV SHRI.AJMAL P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHANMANNA,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SHORNUR-
PERINTHALMANNA RD, SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA,
KERALA, PIN - 679322
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
FOR THE CHERUKAVU VILLAGE, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 673638
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 42281 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:49726
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 42281 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2 Ares and 64 Sq.meters of land comprised in Re-survey No.183/4-1 in Block No.003 of Cherukavu Panchayat, Malappuram District, covered under Ext.P2 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.P5 application in Form 5 application under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P5 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite images as WP(C) NO. 42281 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:49726 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.P6 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, her 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 WP(C) NO. 42281 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:49726 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.P6 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, 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 WP(C) NO. 42281 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:49726 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.P6 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 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.P5 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 WP(C) NO. 42281 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:49726 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 SCB.07.07.25.
WP(C) NO. 42281 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:49726
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42281/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TESTIMONY DT.09.10.2023 OF
THE CHERUKAVU PANCHAYATH, MALAPURAM
DISTRICT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DT.02-10-2024
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHERUKAVU VILLAGE, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.13-09-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT U/S 5 (4) (I) OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, REJECTING EXT.P4 APPLICATION BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT