Kerala High Court
Muhammed Issudheen vs The Revenue Division Officer (Sub ... on 12 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:60476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23165 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED ISSUDHEEN
AGED 75 YEARS
S/O AYSHA UMMA, KARUVATHU,
MULYAKURISSI, PATTIKADU P.O
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679325
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR
SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER (SUB COLLECTOR)
RDO OFFICE, PERUNTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679322
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHIBHAVAN, AGADIPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679322
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, VALAMBOOR VILLAGE,
VALAMBOOR, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679322
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 23165 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:60476
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the co-owner in possession of
36.42 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 196/6-1
of Valamboor Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk, covered
under Ext. P1 land tax receipt. The property is a
converted plot and 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.P2 application in
Form 5 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 relying on satellite
imagery, as specifically mandated under Rule 4(4f) of
2025:KER:60476
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 legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner 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.
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
2025:KER:60476
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.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 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
Agricultural 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 on the relevant date. There is also no
finding whether the exclusion of the property would
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light
2025:KER:60476
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 aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P3 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 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
2025:KER:60476
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/12.08.2025
2025:KER:60476
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23165/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 21-11-2022
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S FORM 5
APPLICATION DATED 21 -11-2022.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 12-10-2024 IN PROCEEDING
NO. 2651/2024.
