Kerala High Court
Akber Ali.M vs The District Collector, Palakkad on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 40077 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:63055
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. 40077 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
AKBER ALI.M.,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, KALATHIL VEEDU,VENGANNUR, ALATHUR.P.O,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678641
BY ADV SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,CIVIL
STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
3 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,CIVIL
STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ALATHUR VILLAGE, ALATHUR.P.O,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678641
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, ALATHUR.P.O,ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678641
6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
ALATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ALATHUR.P.O, PALAKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD,REP.BY ITS CONVENER, PIN - 678641
WP(C) NO. 40077 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:63055
SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 40077 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:63055
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 40077 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0920
hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.446/8 in
Block No.28 of Alathur Village, Alathur Taluk, covered
under Ext.P1 possession certificate. 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.P4 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the
Rules. However, by Ext.P5 order, the authorised officer
has summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for
WP(C) NO. 40077 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:63055
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. In the statement filed by the 2nd respondent
it is contended that the Agricultural Officer has reported
that the property is a 'fallow land' and is not converted
before 2008. It is on the basis of the said report that
Ext.P5 order has been passed.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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
WP(C) NO. 40077 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:63055
same without proper consideration or application of mind.
5. 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 determine
whether the property is to be excluded from the data bank.
6. A reading of Ext.P5 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
WP(C) NO. 40077 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:63055
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.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P5 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
WP(C) NO. 40077 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:63055
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
SCB.20.08.25.
WP(C) NO. 40077 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:63055
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40077/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 04.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 04.02.2008
Exhibit P3 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION
DATED 26.07.2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN FILE NO.RDOPKD/
4965/2022-J2 DATED 10.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT No.ALR 18/2024-25
DATED 01.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER.
