Kerala High Court
Jabir vs The District Collector on 9 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:50295
WP(C) NO. 36014 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 36014 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JABIR,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, KALLIPARAMBIL, MARANCHERY,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679581
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676505
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,TIRUR -
THRIKANDIYOOR ROAD, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676101
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
COLLECTORATE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676505
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
PONNANI TALUK OFFICE, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
679577
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
2025:KER:50295
WP(C) NO. 36014 OF 2024
2
MARANCHERY VILLAGE OFFICE,VELIANCODE - MARANCHERY
ROAD, MARANCHERY, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679584
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
MARANCHERY KRISHI BHAVAN,MARANCHERY, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 679581
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:50295
WP(C) NO. 36014 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 16.19 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 164/3-2 in Maranjery Village, Ponnai 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.P2 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 ExtP3 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P2 application, without inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
2025:KER:50295 WP(C) NO. 36014 OF 2024 4 He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P3 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 suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the 2025:KER:50295 WP(C) NO. 36014 OF 2024 5 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.P3 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 2025:KER:50295 WP(C) NO. 36014 OF 2024 6 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). ExtP3 order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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.
2025:KER:50295 WP(C) NO. 36014 OF 2024 7
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Ext.P2 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 rmm/9/7/2025 2025:KER:50295 WP(C) NO. 36014 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36014/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 06.02.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 09.02.2023 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER