Kerala High Court
Seena Noushad vs The District Collector on 8 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:59695
WP(C) NO. 40577 OF 2024
1
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. 40577 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SEENA NOUSHAD,
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O. NOUSHAD BASHEER,NILAVU, CHELIKKUZHY P.O,
PATTAZHY VADAKKEKARA, KOLLAM,, PIN - 691556
BY ADVS.
SHRI.NAHAS H.
SMT.RIZWANA T.N
SHRI.MUHAMMED MUNEER N.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KAANKATHU MUKKU,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691013
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PUNALUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,KALAYANAD,
PUNALUR, KERALA, PIN - 691331
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE,MINI CIVIL STATION, PALLIMUKKU,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 689695
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PATTAZHY VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE OFFICE,PATTAZHY
VADAKKEKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691526
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
PATTAZHY VADAKKEKARA KRISHI BHAVAN,ENATHU-PATTAZHI
2025:KER:59695
WP(C) NO. 40577 OF 2024
2
RD, PATTAZHY VADAKKEKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691526
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59695
WP(C) NO. 40577 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
10.64 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.10/15 of
Pattazhy Vadakkelara Village, Pathanapuram 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 a Form 5
application under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by
Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer has summarily
rejected the application without either conducting a
personal inspection of the land or calling for the
2025:KER:59695
WP(C) NO. 40577 OF 2024
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 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],
2025:KER:59695
WP(C) NO. 40577 OF 2024
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 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 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
2025:KER:59695
WP(C) NO. 40577 OF 2024
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.P4 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
2025:KER:59695
WP(C) NO. 40577 OF 2024
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
rmm/8/8/2025
2025:KER:59695
WP(C) NO. 40577 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40577/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
05.11.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CORRECTION DEED DATED
15.06.2019
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.04.2019
ISSUED BY THE PATTAZHY VADAKKEKARA
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
