Kerala High Court
Siddeek Ahmed Haji Panamtharayil vs The Revenue Divisional Officer (Deputy ... on 18 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 157 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:62122
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. 157 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SIDDEEK AHMED HAJI PANAMTHARAYIL,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. AHAMMED HAJI MOIDUNNI, KOTTILIL HOUSE, MANNUR
VILLAGE, MANKARA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678613
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
SMT.ANJANA A.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (DEPUTY COLLECTOR
AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT), THRISSUR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE PUTHUR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT,
KRISHI BHAVAN, THRISSUR-MANNAMANGALAM ROAD,
PUTHUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680014
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, MARATHAKKARA-PUZHAMPALLAM
ROAD, MARATHAKKARA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680306
WP(C) NO. 157 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:62122
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE
CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
BY SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, GP
SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
18.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 157 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:62122
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.3237
hectares of land comprised in Survey No.15/3 in Block No.72
in Marathakkara Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District.
The property is a converted land. The respondents have
erroneously classified the land 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.P1 application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P2 order, the 1st respondent/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
12.08.2008-the date the Act came into force. The impugned
2025:KER:62122
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 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
2025:KER:62122
determine whether the property is to be excluded from the
data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P2 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 to reconsider the Form
5 application as per the procedure prescribed under the law.
2025:KER:62122
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P2 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Ext.P1 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:62122
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 157/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
03.10.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
DELETE THE ENTRY CONCERNING HIS PLOT FROM
THE DATA BANK.
EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2024
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
15.01.2025 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE R.T.I
ACT ALONG WITH A POSTAL RECEIPT DATED
17.01.2025.
EXHIBIT-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 17.02.2025 UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE R.T.I ACT.
