Kerala High Court

Abdul Kader vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub ... on 5 August, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                      2025:KER:58234



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
     TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
                       WP(C) NO. 39341 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

          ABDUL KADER,
          AGED 65 YEARS
          S/O SAIDU MOHAMED, MATHAM HOUSE,
          KADAMPAZHIPURAM - 2 , UMMANAZHI P.O.,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678632

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.P.K.SOYUZ
          SRI.E.V.BABYCHAN



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ SUB COLLECTOR,
          THIRUR, RDO OFFICE, THIRUR P.O,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 676101

    2     THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
          MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION,
          MALAPPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505

    3     THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
          KRISHI BHAVAN, TAVANUR, AYANKULAM P.O,
          TAVANUR , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 679573

    4     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          TAVANUR VILLAGE OFFICE, TAVANUR P.O,
          MALAPPURAM P.O,, PIN - 679574


OTHER PRESENT:

          SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.39341    OF 2024       2

                                                 2025:KER:58234


                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of August, 2025

The petitioner is the owner in possession of

73.36 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 376/2-4,

376/3-5, 376/5-5, 379/1-10 and 376/6-5 of Thavanur

Village, Ponnani Taluk, covered under Ext. P1 land tax

receipt. The respondents have erroneously classified

the property as 'paddy land' and included it in Ext. P2

notified 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.P3 application in

Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by

Ext.P5 order, the first respondent has partly rejected

Ext. P3 application by only excluding the property

comprised in Survey No. 376/6-5 from the data bank.

The remaining property comprised in Survey Nos.

2025:KER:58234

376/2-4, 376/3-5, 376/5-5 and 379/1-10 were directed

to be retained in the data bank. The first respondent

has not directly inspected the property. Even though

the first respondent had called for Ext. P4 report from

the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment

Centre ('KSREC report', for short), as specifically

mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, he has not

considered the same in its proper perspective. The

partial rejection of Ext. P3 application is without due

application of mind. Ext. P5 order, to the extent of

partially rejecting the petitioner's application, is illegal

and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

2.In the statement filed by the second respondent, it

is contended that, the Agricultural Officer has reported

that the property is lying fallow since 2008. The property

is suitable for paddy cultivation. It is in the said

circumstances that the Agricultural Officer has

recommended to retain 69.32 Ares of land in the data

2025:KER:58234

bank. Nevertheless, as there are large trees in the

Survey No. 376/6-5, he has recommended the said

property to be excluded from the data bank. There is no

illegality in Ext. P5 order. Hence, the writ petition may

be dismissed.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Senior Government Pleader.

4. The principal contention of the petitioner is that

the entire extent of the applied property is not a

cultivable paddy field, but it is a converted land. The

respondents have erroneously classified the entire extent

of land as paddy land and included it in the data bank.

The authorised officer, without due application of mind,

has only partly allowed the application.

5. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of

this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v.

Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],

Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

2025:KER:58234

Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The

Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,

Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the competent

authority 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 merits

exclusion from the data bank.

6. A reading of Ext.P5 order reveals that the

authorised officer has not complied with the statutory

requirements. There is no indication in the order that the

authorised officer has directly inspected the property.

Instead, the authorised officer had called for Ext. P4

KSREC report, as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the

Rules. In Ext. P4 KSREC report, it is observed that the

properties comprised in Survey Plot Nos. 376/2, 376/5

and 376/3 were lying fallow in the data of 2008.

However, with respect to the Survey Plot No. 376/6, it is

2025:KER:58234

observed that the property has mixed

vegetation/plantation/trees in the data of 2008. The same

is the nature and character of the property in Survey Plot

No. 379/1 in the data of 2008.

7. The authorised officer, without directly

inspecting the property, by solely relying on Ext. P4

KSREC report has only excluded the property comprised

in Survey Plot No. 376/6 on the ground that there are

huge trees in the said property. However, a reading of

Ext. P4 KSREC report shows that the property comprised

in Survey Plot No. 379/1 of the same character.

8. In Mather Nagar Residents Association

and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and

Others (2020 (2) KHC 94) this Court has categorically

held that, merely because a property is lying fallow and

gets waterlogged during the rainy season, the property

cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land. The same

view has been reiterated by this Court in Aparna Sasi

2025:KER:58234

Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda

(2023 (6) KHC 83).

In view of the exposition of law in the above

judgments on finding that the authorised officer has not

directly inspected the property, I am of the definite view

that the authorised officer ought to have accepted Ext.

P4 KSREC report. Therefore, I hold that Ext. P5 order

passed by the authorised officer is erroneous and is

liable to be interfered with. Consequently, Ext. P5 order

is quashed, and the authorised officer is to be directed to

reconsider the Form 5 application as per the procedure

prescribed under the law.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ

petition in the following manner:

i. Ext.P5 order is quashed to the extent of partially

rejecting the Form 5 application.

ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is

directed to reconsider Ext.P3 application to the extent of

2025:KER:58234

partially rejecting the same, in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible within 90 days from the date of

production of a copy of this judgment. It would be up to

the authorised officer to either directly inspect the

property or refer to Ext. P4 KSREC report to arrive at his

decision.

The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/05.08.25

2025:KER:58234

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39341/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 01.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4 TH RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF NOTIFIED DATA BANK OF TAVANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 15.03.2012 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 06.04.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED 08.09.2023 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2023 OF THE 1 ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LAND OWNED BY THE PETITIONER