Kerala High Court
Bushra vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 10700 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:63027
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. 10700 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BUSHRA,
AGED 47 YEARS
D/O. KOCHU MUHAMMED PUTHENPURA HOUSE, PONJASSERY
P.O.,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 673585
BY ADV SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE GROUND FLOOR,
PATTIMATTOM - MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULA, PIN
- 682030
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
VENGOLA KRISHI BHAVAN, VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU
TALUK,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682308
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING & ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
1ST FLOOR,VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
WP(C) NO. 10700 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:63027
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, 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. 10700 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:63027
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 10700 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2.40
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.69/13 of Vengola
Village, Kunnathunad Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 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.P3
application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling
WP(C) NO. 10700 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:63027
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
Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and
WP(C) NO. 10700 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:63027
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.P4 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
WP(C) NO. 10700 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:63027
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.P4 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
WP(C) NO. 10700 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:63027
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. 10700 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:63027
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10700/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER VENGOLA TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 21.5.2024
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 DATED
29.5.2024
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 6.3.2025 FILE NO.
