Kerala High Court
A M Noushad vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 10799 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:63019
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. 10799 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
A M NOUSHAD,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. ABDULKHADER ALANGAYI HOUSE,KANADATHARA, ALLAPRA
P.O.,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
BY ADV SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE GROUND
FLOOR , ATTIMATTOM - MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM, PIN
- 682030
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
VENGOLA KRISHI BHAVAN, VENGOLA VILLAGE,KUNNATHUNADU
TALUK,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682308
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. 10799 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:63019
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 10799 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 7.69
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.26/3-2-3 of Vengola
Village, Kunnathunad Taluk, Ernakulam District. 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
inspection of the land or referring the satellite pictures
WP(C) NO. 10799 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:63019
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
Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy
WP(C) NO. 10799 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:63019
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
considered 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
WP(C) NO. 10799 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:63019
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
WP(C) NO. 10799 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:63019
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. 10799 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:63019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10799/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 DATED
3.8.2022
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 28.9.2023 [ FILE NO.
10010/2023 ]
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
SATELLITE REPORT OF THE KERALA STATE
REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
