Kerala High Court
Shihab vs The Authorised Officer on 13 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 39173 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:60920
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. 39173 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SHIHAB,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMADALI, KOTTALAYIL HOUSE, PERINGALA P.O,
KUNNATHUNAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
683565
BY ADVS. SHRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY
SMT.ANU S NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER THE PADDY LAND AND WET
LAND ACT DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR), COLLECTORATE,
KAKKANAD CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,PATTIMATTOM- MUVATTUPUZHA
ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686673
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURE OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD VILLAGE,
KUMARAPURAM, PALLIKKARA P.O, ERNAKLULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683565
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, 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. 39173 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:60920
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 9.47
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.273/13 in
Kunnathunadu Village, Ernakulam District, 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 Ext.P3 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
2025:KER:60920
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 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
2025:KER:60920
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 surrounding paddy
fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that the
2025:KER:60920
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 receipt of such pictures. On the other
2025:KER:60920
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:60920
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39173/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
30.09.2021
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
NO.6/2022/105370 DATED 19.02.2022
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FILE NO.1458/2022 DATED
22.11.2022 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
