Kerala High Court
Shibil Muhammed vs State Of Kerala on 4 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 32087 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:57832
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32087 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
SHIBIL MUHAMMED,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, KOLAKKADAN HOUSE, KUNIYIL,
KIZHUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673639
BY ADVS. SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ
SMT.K.VINAYA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679329
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
WANDOOR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679328
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, BLOCK PANCHAYAT OFFICE COMPOUND,
WANDOOR (P.O), MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679328
6 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (DM),
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676505
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 32087 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:57832
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 04th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the co-owner in possession of
0.2804 hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.308/4-
3 in Wandoor Village, Nilambur Taluk, Malappuram
District , covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt. The
property is a converted land and is unsuitable for paddy
cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have
erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' and
included it in the data bank maintained under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and
the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules', for
brevity). To exclude the property from the data bank, the
petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 application in Form 5,
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P5 order,
the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
2025:KER:57832
inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures
as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore,
the order is devoid of any independent finding regarding
the nature and character of the land as it existed on
12.08.2008 -- the date the Act came into force. The
impugned order, therefore, is arbitrary and unsustainable
in law and liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's principal contention is that
the applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the
Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected the
same without proper consideration or application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of
judgments of this Court -- including the decisions in
Muraleedharan Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer
[2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue
2025:KER:57832
Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and
Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub
Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the
authorised officer is obliged to assess the nature, lie and
character of the land and its suitability for paddy
cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive
criteria to determine whether the property is to be
excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P5 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory
requirements. There is no indication in the order that the
authorised officer has personally inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has
merely acted upon the report of the Agricultural Officer
without rendering any independent finding regarding the
nature and character of the land as on the relevant date.
There is also no finding whether the exclusion of the
property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy
2025:KER:57832
fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that the
impugned order was passed in contravention of the
statutory mandate and the law laid down by this Court.
Thus, the impugned order is vitiated due to errors of law
and non-application of mind, and is liable to be quashed.
Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to
reconsider the Form 5 application as per the procedure
prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 6th respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P4 application, in accordance with
the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of
the property or calling for the satellite pictures as
provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of
the petitioner.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the
application shall be disposed of within three months
2025:KER:57832
from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other
hand, if the authorised officer opts to inspect the
property personally, the application shall be disposed
of within two months from the date of production of a
copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:57832
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32087/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
DOCUMENT DEED NO. 897/2011 DATED 4.2.2011
OF SRO WANDOOR
EXHIBIT P 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL10051922598/2022 DATED 9.11.2022 ISSUED
BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT P 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO. 87994808 DATED 22.8.2024 ISSUED BY THE
WANDOOR VILLAGE OFFICE
EXHIBIT P 4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 DATED
27.12.2022
EXHIBIT P 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SUB
COLLECTOR , PERINTHALMANNA DATED 16.8.2023
EXHIBIT P 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER WANDOOR DATED 6.1.2023
