Kerala High Court
Sainaba Muhammed vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 7 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:59231
WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 SAINABA MUHAMMED,
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. K.S. MUHAMMED, KOOTTAYI HOUSE, RAYONPURAM
P.O., NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683543
2 MUHAMMAD K.S.,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. SULAIMAN, KOOTTAYI HOUSE, RAYONPURAM P.O.,
NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683543
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.N.HARIDAS
SHRI.SAIFUDEEN T.S
SMT.B.SHAMEERA
SMT.NIMISHAMOL SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FIRST
FLOOR, KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682001
2025:KER:59231
WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025
2
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R.),
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
NEDUMBASSERY KRISHI BHAVAN, MEKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683589
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
NEDUMBASSERY KRISHI BHAVAN, MEKKAD P.O.,ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683589
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE, MEKKAD, NEDUMBASSERY,
ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683589
SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 07.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59231
WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.12340 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are husband and wife. They are
the owner in possession of 0.39 Ares and 1.21 Ares of
land comprised in Re-survey Nos.82/4 and 82/4-2
respectively in Nedumbassery Village in Aluva Taluk,
covered under Exts.P1 and P2 possession certificates.
The properties are converted land and are unsuitable for
paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have
erroneously classified the properties 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 properties from the data bank,
2025:KER:59231
WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025
the petitioners had submitted Exts.P3 and P4
applications in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Exts.P7 and P8 orders, the authorised
officer has summarily rejected the application without
either conducting a personal inspection of the land or
calling for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the orders are 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 orders,
therefore, are arbitrary and unsustainable in law and
liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' principal contention is that
the applied properties are not cultivable paddy field but
are converted plots. Nonetheless, the properties have
2025:KER:59231
WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025
been incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing
the Form 5 applications, 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 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 Exts.P7 and P8 orders reveal
2025:KER:59231
WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025
that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the
statutory requirements. There is no indication in the
orders that the authorised officer has personally
inspected the properties or called for the satellite
pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
Instead, the authorised officer has merely acted upon
the reports of the Agricultural Officer, who in turn relied
on the recommendation of the LLMC. He acted 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 properties
would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.
In light of the above findings, I hold that the impugned
orders were 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.
2025:KER:59231
WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025
Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to
reconsider the Form 5 applications as per the procedure
prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Exts.P7 and P8 order are quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5, in accordance with the
law, by either conducting a personal inspection
of the properties 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
applications 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 properties personally, the
2025:KER:59231
WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025
applications 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
dkr
2025:KER:59231
WP(C) NO. 12340 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12340/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 10.04.2023 ISSUED FROM
THE VILLAGE OFFICE, NEDUMBASSERY TO THE
1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 10.04.2023 ISSUED FROM
THE VILLAGE OFFICE, NEDUMBASSERY TO THE
2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.06.2020 ALONG
WITH THE ENDORSEMENT BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DIRECTLY
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 11.06.2020
WITH THE ENDORSEMENT BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C).NO.19084 OF 2024
DATED 18.07.2024
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CON.CASE (C)
NO.3223/2024 DATED 25.01.2025 SANS
ENCLOSURES
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING
THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
2ND PETITIONER DATED 05.01.2022
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING
THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER DATED 04.11.2023
