Wednesday, 22, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Fathima vs The District Collector
2025 Latest Caselaw 5802 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5802 Ker
Judgement Date : 20 August, 2025

Kerala High Court

Fathima vs The District Collector on 20 August, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 2402 OF 2025             1                   2025:KER:62888

               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. 2402 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

          FATHIMA,
          AGED 62 YEARS
          W/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, KADUNGAM KUNNATH, ANAKKARA,
          PALAKKAD, PIN - 679551


          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,
          PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679303

    5     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          ANAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, THRITHALA-KUMBIDI ROAD,
          KUMBIDI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679553
 WP(C) NO. 2402 OF 2025          2                 2025:KER:62888

    6     THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
          ANAKKARA KRISHI BHAVAN, WARD 13, ANAKKARA, KUMBIDI,
          PALAKKAD, PIN - 679553

    7     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. 2402 OF 2025            3                2025:KER:62888

                            C.S.DIAS, J.
                ---------------------------------------
                  WP(C) No. 2402 OF 2025
               -----------------------------------------
          Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the co-owner in possession of

14.97 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.249/9-1 and

249/9-2 of Anakkara Village, Pattambi 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 '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 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 calling for the satellite pictures as WP(C) NO. 2402 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:62888

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

Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy WP(C) NO. 2402 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:62888

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

contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid WP(C) NO. 2402 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:62888

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

personally, the application shall be disposed of within WP(C) NO. 2402 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:62888

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. 2402 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:62888

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2402/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 27.09.2022 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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter