Kerala High Court
Ismail C vs The District Collector on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 322 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:62916
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. 322 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ISMAIL C.,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. KUNHI MOHAMMED, CHELAKKATTUTHODI HOUSE,
KUNNAPPALLY POST, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
679322
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PERINTHALMANNA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHORNUR-
PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, SHORNUR-
PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
679322
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PATHAIKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE,PATHAIKKARA, ERAVIMANGALAM,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679340
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
WP(C) NO. 322 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:62916
PERINTHALMANNA KRISHI BHAVAN, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
GP.SMT.DEEPA V., SC- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
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. 322 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:62916
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 322 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 12.94
Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.129/1-2 and 129/3-5
of Pathaikkara Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk, 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
WP(C) NO. 322 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:62916
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 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
WP(C) NO. 322 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:62916
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.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
WP(C) NO. 322 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:62916
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.P3 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 hand, if the
authorised officer opts to inspect the property
WP(C) NO. 322 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:62916
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. 322 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:62916
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 322/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
04.04.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
30.04.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
