Kerala High Court
Rafiya vs The District Collector on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:62895
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1230 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RAFIYA,
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. SHARAFUDHEEN, KADUNGAM KUNNATH,
ANAKKARA, MURUR P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679578
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU,
KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OTTAPALAM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
RS ROAD, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679101
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU,
KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
PATTAMBI TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679303
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ANAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE,
THRITHALA-KUMBIDI ROAD, KUMBIDI,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679553
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
ANAKKARA KRISHI BHAVAN,WARD 13,
ANAKKARA, KUMBIDI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679553
WP(C) NO.1230 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:62895
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, STANDING
COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARED
ON 20.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.1230 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:62895
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the co-owner in possession of
7.28 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 249/10 in
Anakkara Village, Pattambi 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 'Nanja' 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 the Rules. Furthermore, the order is
2025:KER:62895
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
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
2025:KER:62895
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
of the above findings, I hold that the impugned order was
2025:KER:62895
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 third 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
receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the
2025:KER:62895
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/20.08.25
2025:KER:62895
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1230/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
22.09.2022
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
28.09.2022
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
