Kerala High Court
Sathar P vs The District Collector on 8 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 19753 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:59465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19753 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SATHAR P.,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O MAMMED KOYA HAJI, RESIDING AT PYKAT HOUSE,
ERANJIKKAL POST, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673303
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERUMANNA VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, PERUMANNA, PERUMANNA.P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19753 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:59465
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 08th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.7368
Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.160/75 in
Perumanna Village, Kozhikode Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 sale deed. The property is a converted land and is
unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the
respondents have erroneously classified the property as
'paddy land' and '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.P3 order, 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 order is devoid of any independent
2025:KER:59465
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 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
2025:KER:59465
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 Ext.P3 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 reports of the Agricultural Officer
and the Village Officer. He has not rendered 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
2025:KER:59465
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 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 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 inspect the
2025:KER:59465
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
NAB
2025:KER:59465
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19753/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.
2327/2012 OF SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE,
MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DATED 29.05.2012
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES FROM THE DATA
BANK OF PADDY AND WET LANDS OF PERUMANNA
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 02/12/2023
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PERUMANNA DATED
20/02/2024 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
