Kerala High Court
Jameela vs The Sub Collector, Ottapalam on 20 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:62981
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. 15297 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JAMEELA,
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. MUHAMMAD, AZHAKAN KANDATHIL,
KEEZHMURI P.O, PATTAMBI TALUK,
PALAKKAD DT., PIN - 679307
BY ADV SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR, OTTAPALAM,
COURT ROAD, OTTAPPALAM,
PALAKKAD DT., PIN - 679101
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
U/S 2 (XVA) OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND
AND WET LAND ACT, ( FOR PATTAMBI TALUK)
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
PATTAMBI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PATTAMBI, P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679303
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PATTAMBI VILLAGE OFFICE,
P.O. PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DT., PIN - 679303
5 DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033
WP(C) NO.15297 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:62981
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLLY HEARD ON
20.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.15297 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:62981
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
5.26 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 44/2-4 in
Pattambi Village, Pattambi Taluk covered under Ext.
P2 land tax receipt. The property is a converted plot
and unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the
respondents have erroneously classified the property
as 'Nanja' 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 an
application in Form 5 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 relying
on satellite imagery, as specifically mandated under
2025:KER:62981
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 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
2025:KER:62981
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
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.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 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
2025:KER:62981
of the above findings, I hold that the impugned order was
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.P1 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form 5 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
2025:KER:62981
receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the
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/20.08.25
2025:KER:62981
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15297/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/11/2024
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING
THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE
PETITIONER'S LAND DATED 14/11/2024
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND DATED 15/11/2024
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C NO.
5969/2024 DATED 15/2/2024 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
