Kerala High Court
Mohammed Sadath vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 18 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 44016 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:62128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 44016 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED SADATH,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O SULAIMAN, MUKALEL HOUSE TC-1/1169/1,
NEHRU JUNCTION, KAZHAKKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695582
BY ADVS.SHRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
SMT.RICHU HANNA RANJITH
SHRI.DINOOP P.D.
SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY
SMT.L.LAKSHMI OMANAKUTTAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541
2 VILLAGE OFFICER,
KAZHAKKUTTAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KAZHAKKUTTOM AGRICULTURAL OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582
BY SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 44016 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:62128
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.95
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.99/11 in
Kazhakkuttam Village, 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.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 calling for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
2025:KER:62128
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], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue
Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy
2025:KER:62128
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.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 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
2025:KER:62128
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.P3 order is quashed.
(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 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
2025:KER:62128
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:62128
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44016/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED
20/09/2008 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED
AS EXHIBIT P1
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
31/08/2024 ISSUED FROM KAZHAKKUTTOM
VILLAGE OFFICE IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
MARKED AS EXHIBIT P2
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF FORM 5 APPLICATION IS DATED
3/11/2022 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED
AS EXHIBIT P3
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO 3/2022/742769 I 4
(DDIS) DATED 06/10/2023 IS PRODUCED
HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P4
