Kerala High Court
Nazeer S vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:59697
WP(C) NO. 7462 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. 7462 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
NAZEER S,
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O SULAIMAN, SAREENA MANZIL, OPP POLICE UARTERS,
PATHANAPURAM P.O, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM,
PIN - 689695
BY ADVS.
SHRI.NAHAS H.
SMT.RIZWANA T.N
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PUNALUR, PIN - 691305
2 THE TAHASILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, PALLIMUKKU, PATHANAAPURAM,KOLLAM,
PIN - 689695
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
PALLIMUKKU PATHANAAPURAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 689695
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, PIDAVOOR, PATHANAAPURAM,
KOLLAM, PIN - 689695
2025:KER:59697
WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024
2
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59697
WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
9.11 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.437/3A,
437/5A-2, 437/5B-2, 437/3-1A and 437/4A of
Pathanapuram Village, Pathanapuram Taluk, covered
under Ext.P2 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.P5 application
in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by
Ext.P6 order, the authorised officer has partially
rejected the application without either conducting a
2025:KER:59697
WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024
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 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:59697
WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024
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 Ext.P6 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
2025:KER:59697
WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024
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 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.P6 order partially rejecting the petitioner's
Form 5 application is set aside.
(ii) The 1st 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
2025:KER:59697
WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024
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
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:59697
WP(C) NO. 7462 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7462/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 913/2012
DATED 30.04.2012
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
15.10.2023 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER,
PATHANAPURAM
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 01/09/2022 ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICER ,PATHANAPURAM
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 08.10.2022
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
13/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 17/10/2023 BEFORE THE RDO PUNALUR
