Kerala High Court
Anitha Sherafudheen vs The District Collector on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:58597
WP(C) NO. 4339 OF 2025
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. 4339 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANITHA SHERAFUDHEEN ,
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O. SHERAFUDHEEN, MUSLIMVEETTIL HOUSE, ARTHAT PO,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680521
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MOHEMED FAVAS
SHRI.P.S.KARTHIK
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
CIVIL LINES RD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680003
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
CIVIL LINES RD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680003
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
ARTHAT KRISHIBHAVAN, KUNNAMKULAM MUNCIPALITY,
ARTHAT, THRISSUR, PIN - 680523
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:58597
WP(C) NO. 4339 OF 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
10.4 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.35/3-2 of
Arthat Village, Kunnamkulam Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 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.P2 application in
Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by
Ext.P3 order, the authorised officer has summarily
rejected the application without either conducting a
2025:KER:58597
WP(C) NO. 4339 OF 2025
personal 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
2025:KER:58597
WP(C) NO. 4339 OF 2025
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.
5. A reading of ExtP3 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
2025:KER:58597
WP(C) NO. 4339 OF 2025
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
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 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.
2025:KER:58597
WP(C) NO. 4339 OF 2025
(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 petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm6/8/2025
2025:KER:58597
WP(C) NO. 4339 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4339/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
16.07.2024 ISSUED BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
21.07.2023 BEFORE RDO
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RDO DATED
04.09.2024
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION
DATED 20/01/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP (C)
NO.8886/2024 DATED 07/03/2024 OF THE
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
