Kerala High Court
Muhammed Ashraf K vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 18665 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:60927
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18665 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED ASHRAF K
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O ALAVI K KARANGADAN
KIZHUPARAMBA,MALAPPURAM KERALA-, PIN - 673639
BY ADVS. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA
SMT.A.LOWSY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PERINTHALMANNA, SHORNUR-PERINTHALMANNA ROAD SHANTHI
NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM- PIN, PIN - 679322
3 PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, AREAKODE VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DIST
PIN-, PIN - 673639
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
(KSREC), REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS
BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,
PIN - 695033
5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
AREAKODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENOR/AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AREAKODE PO MALAPPURAM
DIST,, PIN - 673639
BY SMT.PREETHA K K, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18665 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:60927
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3 Ares and
77 Sq.Metres of land comprised in Re-Survey No.67/7-1 in
Block No.31 in Areakode Village, Eranad 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 an application in Form 5, 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
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
2025:KER:60927
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 authorised officer is obliged to assess the nature, lie
and character of the land and its suitability for paddy
2025:KER:60927
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 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
2025:KER:60927
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
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
NAB
2025:KER:60927
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18665/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER CONCERNED,
DATED 22.08.2024
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX DATED
01.04.2025
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 05/08/2024
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/04/2023
IN W.P(C) 26143/2022 AND W.P(C) 26172/2022
