Kerala High Court
Safaruddeen Kottaparamb vs State Of Kerala on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:58766
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. 23185 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SAFARUDDEEN KOTTAPARAMB,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. KOYATTY, BAITHUL RASHID,
KAYATTIYIL, OLAVANNA P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
2 RAMLA P.P.,
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O. SAFARUDDEEN KOTTAPARAMB,
BAITHUL RASHID, KAYATTIYIL, OLAVANNA P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR
SHRI.VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR
SMT.SILPA SREEKUMAR
SMT.MERIN K JIMMY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & SUB COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
OLAVANNA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
WP(C) NO.23185 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:58766
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- 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:
WP(C) NO.23185 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:58766
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025
The petitioners are the owners in possession of
8.07 Ares land comprised in Re-Survey No. 47/4A in
Olavanna Village, Chevayur Taluk, covered under Ext. P1
title deed. The respondents have erroneously classified
the property as 'wetland' 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 a Form
5 application under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by
Ext.P4 order, the third respondent has summarily
rejected the application without either conducting a
personal inspection of the land or relying on satellite
imagery, as specifically mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules. Aggrieved by Ext. P4 order, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the second
2025:KER:58766
respondent. By the impugned Ext. P5 order, the second
respondent rejected the appeal on the ground that there
is no provision to file an appeal. Exts. P4 and P5 orders
are devoid of any independent consideration or finding
regarding the nature and character of the land as it
existed on 12.08.2008--the date the Act came into force.
Exts. P4 and P5 orders are arbitrary and legally
unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the
subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or application
of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v.
2025:KER:58766
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 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.
5. A reading of Ext.P4 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 directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the
Village Officer that the impugned order has been passed.
The authorised officer has not rendered any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the land as
2025:KER:58766
on the relevant date. Even though the petitioner had
erroneously preferred an appeal before the second
respondent, the same was also rejected by Ext. P5 order
on the ground that there is no provision for filing an
appeal. Ext. P4 order also substantiates that the
authorised officer has not rendered any independent
finding on whether the exclusion of the property would
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light of
the above findings, I hold that Ext. P4 order was passed in
contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid
down by this Court. Thus, the impugned orders are vitiated
due to errors of law and non-application of mind and are
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 aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Exts.P4 and P5 orders are quashed.
2025:KER:58766
ii. The third respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 application in accordance with
law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal
inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the
satellite pictures, in accordance with 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 from the date of
receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the
authorised officer opts to personally inspect the property,
the application shall be considered and 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
mtk/06.08.25
2025:KER:58766
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23185/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 2694/1995 DATED
15.12.1995 OF SRO, CHALAPURAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT
DATED 18.07.2003 REMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE SHOP BUILDING
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT
DATED 10.01.2007 REMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. RDOKKD/4607/2022-C5
DATED 28.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. DCKKD/9172/2023-L12
DATED 25.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO. A4-7781/2019
DATED 22.01.2020 ISSUED BY OLAVANNA GRAMA
PANCHAYAT
