Kerala High Court
Sulaigha vs The District Collector on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:62833
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. 46609 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SULAIGHA,
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O. SHAMSUDHEEN, NADAKKAVIL HOUSE,
VALANCHERI P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676552
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE ROAD, UP HILL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
TIRUR - THRIKANDIYOOR ROAD, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676101
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
TIRUR TALUK OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
TIRUR MINI CIVIL BUILDING,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676101
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KATTIPPARUTHY VILLAGE OFFICE, VALANCHERI,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676552
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
VALANCHERI KRISHI BHAVAN,VALANCHERI P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676552
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
WP(C) NO.46609 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:62833
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT.PREETHA K.K,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.46609 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:62833
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the co-owner in possession of
30.02 Ares of land in Kattipparuthi Village, Tirur Taluk
covered under Ext. P1 land tax receipt. Out of the
above extent of land, 20.13 Ares of land comprised in
Survey No. 116/1B-4 has been erroneously classified
the property as 'Nanja' in the revenue records. To
exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner
had submitted Ext.P2 application in Form 5 under Rule
4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules framed thereunder
('Act' and 'Rules", for brevity). However, by Ext.P3
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected
the application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery,
as specifically mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
Furthermore, the order is devoid of any independent
2025:KER:62833
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 legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that
the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including 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,
2025:KER:62833
Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the competent
authority 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 merits
exclusion 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 directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer, that the impugned order has been
passed. The authorised officer has not rendered 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
2025:KER:62833
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 aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P3 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 application in accordance
with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call
for the satellite pictures, in accordance with 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
2025:KER:62833
authorised officer opts to personally inspect the
property, the application shall be considered and
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
mtk/20.08.2025
2025:KER:62833
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46609/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
05.09.2022
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
23.12.2022
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
