Ayshatul Farsana K.M vs Revenue Divisional Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 2293 Ker

Kerala High Court

Ayshatul Farsana K.M vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 6 August, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                2025:KER:58598
WP(C) NO. 32417 OF 2024

                               1
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

 WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947

                    WP(C) NO. 32417 OF 2024

PETITIONERS:

    1    AYSHATUL FARSANA K.M,
         AGED 28 YEARS
         D/O: ZOURA, KUBANOOR, KASARAGOD, KERALA, PIN -
         671322

    2    ABBUBACKER SIDHIQ P.M,
         AGED 38 YEARS
         S/O.M.B.AHAMMAD, SANNADKA HOUSE, KUNJATHUR P.O,
         KUNJATHUR, KASARAGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671323


         BY ADV SHRI.ADIL.M.H


RESPONDENTS:

    1    REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PUTHIYAKOTTA PO,
         HOSDURG, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD, KERALA, PIN -
         671315

    2    THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
         VILLAGE OFFICE KUNJATHUR, UDYAWAR, KUNJATHUR,
         KASARAGOD,KERALA, PIN - 671322

    3    THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
         MANJESHWAR KRISHI BHAVAN, MANJESHWAR-HOSANGADI OLD
         HWY, MANJESHWAR, HOSABETTU, KASARAGOD, KERALA, PIN
         - 671323

    4    THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
         (CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF
         PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008) REPRESENTED BY
         ITS CONVENOR, (THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,MANJESHWAR
                                                          2025:KER:58598
WP(C) NO. 32417 OF 2024

                                 2
           KRISHI BHAVAN,MANJESHWAR-HOSANGADI OLD HWY,
           MANJESHWAR, HOSABETTU,KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA,
           PIN - 671323

     5     KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
           CENTRE,
           1ST FLOOR, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, VIKAS
           BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
           PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- REPRESENTED BY ITS
           DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033

           SR GP SMT PREETHA K K



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   06.08.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                 2025:KER:58598
WP(C) NO. 32417 OF 2024

                                3


                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025

The 1st petitioner is the owner in possession of

3 Ares and 4 Sq.Metres of land comprised in Re-

Survey No.169/11PT5 in Block No.001 in Kunjathur

Village, Manjeshwar Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 sale

deed and 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 1st petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application

under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P3

order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected

the application without either conducting a personal 2025:KER:58598 WP(C) NO. 32417 OF 2024

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. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1 st

respondent it is contended that, the Agricultural Officer

has reported that the property is not a converted paddy

field. Instead, it is a part of 'Padashekharam' and the

land adjacent to the property in question was cultivated

in the first season of this year. If permission is granted

to convert the property, it would adversely affect the

near-by paddy cultivation. Therefore, Ext.P3 order was

passed.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the

petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The petitioners' principal contention is that the 2025:KER:58598 WP(C) NO. 32417 OF 2024

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.

5. 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 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.

6. A reading of Ext.P3 order reveals that the

authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory 2025:KER:58598 WP(C) NO. 32417 OF 2024

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 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 2025:KER:58598 WP(C) NO. 32417 OF 2024

writ petition in the following manner:

(i) Ext.P3 order is quashed.

(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed

to reconsider the Form 5 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

petitioners.

(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the

application shall be disposed of within three months

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 petitioners.

The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.

SD/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/6/8/2025 2025:KER:58598 WP(C) NO. 32417 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32417/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 SALE DEED DOCUMENT NO. 3667 OF 2023 FROM THE SUB-REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, EXECUTED ON 11.10.2023 IN FAVOR OF 1ST PETITIONER. THE TRUE COPY OF DEED IN KANNADA LANGUAGE AND IT'S ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS HEREBY PRODUCED AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT- P1 Exhibit -P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.10.2023, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE PETITIONER'S NAME, IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P2.

Exhibit -P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER OF FORM-5 AS PER KERALA WET LAND AND PADDY LAND ACT DATED 24.01.2024, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN ORDER, IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P3 Exhibit-P 4 THE DIRECTIONS MADE BY THIS HON'BLE COURT TO CONSIDER A LAND AS WET LAND AND PADDY LAND THROUGH THE JUDGEMENT DATED 16.01.2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.40499 OF 2016. A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 16.01.2017 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT- P4 Exhibit -P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.09.2017 IN W.P.(C) NO. 16898/2017 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P5 Exhibit-P 6 THE LETTER OF NO-OBJECTION BY MR.PRAKASH PAI U WHO IS THE LAND OWNER (DOCUMENT NO.2142/2023 OF MANJESHWAR SRO) OF THE LAND ADJACENT TO THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IS PRODUCED HEREBY AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT-P6 Exhibit -P7 THE LETTER OF NO-OBJECTION BY ANOTHER ADJACENT LAND OWNER MR.ABDUL HAMEED (DOCUMENT NO.181/2023) IS PRODUCED HEREBY AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT.P7 Exhibit-P8 THE PHOTO OF LAND OF PETITIONER WITH ROAD FACILITY IS PRODUCED HEREBY AND 2025:KER:58598 WP(C) NO. 32417 OF 2024

MARKED AS EXHIBIT-P8.

Exhibit -P9 A TRUE EXTRACT OF THE PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING SATELLITE DATA AND REPORTS FROM KSRSEC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P9.

Exhibit-P10 THE TRUE COPIES OF THE NO LAND CERTIFICATES ISSUED IN THE NAMES OF 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONERS BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER KUNJATHUR DATED 29.01.2025 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT- P10.