Kerala High Court
Sakkeer P. K vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:50866
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 14949 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SAKKEER P. K.,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O HAMSA HAJI,
RESIDING AT PANNIKANDATHIL HOUSE,
VAILATHUR, ATHANIKKAL, PONMUNDAM P.O.,
PONMUNDAM, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676106
BY ADV SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR, OFFICE OF THE RDO,
TIRURTHRIKANDIYOOR ROAD, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676101
3 THAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE TIRUR, OFFICE AT TIRUR
MINI CIVIL STATION OFFICE, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN PONMUNDAM, VAILATHUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676106
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PONMUNDAM VILLAGE OFFICE, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676106
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.14949 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:50866
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner in possession of 16.29 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.25/2-1 in Ponmundam Village, Tirur 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 a 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. P2 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 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 WP(C) NO.14949 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:50866 nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P2 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 date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant WP(C) NO.14949 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:50866 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. P2 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 WP(C) NO.14949 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:50866 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. P2 order is quashed.
(ii). The second respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 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.WP(C) NO.14949 OF 2025 6
2025:KER:50866
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider the Form 5 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 mtk/10.07.25 WP(C) NO.14949 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:50866 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14949/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10.05.2024 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION