Kerala High Court
Munsaf M.K vs The State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 607 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:62910
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. 607 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MUNSAF M.K.,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O SALEEM THARAMMAL HOUSE, THARAMMAL HOUSE,
MARANCHERY AMSOM DESOM, MAARANCHERY P.O, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
RAPHELLO HAFIZ, S/O M.K.MOOSAKUTTY, NEETHI NILAYAM,
CHAIRMAN ROAD, TRIKANDIYOOR P.O, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679581
BY ADVS.
SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
SMT.T.S.SREEKUTTY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
676504
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
NIRAMARUTHUR, NIRAMARUTHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 676109
WP(C) NO. 607 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:62910
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, NIRAMARUTHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 676109
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
NIRAMARUTHUR VILLAGE OFFICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 676109
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. 607 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:62910
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 607 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4 Ares
and 91.7 sq.meters of land comprised in Survey
No.368/1A2-5 of Niramaruthur Village, Malappuram
District. The property is a converted land and is unsuitable
for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have
erroneously classified the property as 'wetland' 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 a Form 5 application under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P1 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
WP(C) NO. 607 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:62910
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
Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy
WP(C) NO. 607 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:62910
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.P1 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
WP(C) NO. 607 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:62910
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.P1 order is quashed.
(ii) The 3rd 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
personally, the application shall be disposed of within
WP(C) NO. 607 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:62910
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. 607 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:62910
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 607/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2024
