Kerala High Court
Muhammed Musthafa vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 15 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52205
WP(C) NO. 4614 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4614 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O MOOSA HAJI, VARIKODAN HOUSE, DOWN HILL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676519
BY ADV SHRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
SHORNUR-PERINTHALMANNA RD,SHANTI NAGAR,
PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679322
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN,CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676505
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PANAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE, PARAPPANANGADI ROAD,
KOLMANNA, PANAKKAD, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676519
SMT.JESSY S.SALIM, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 15.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52205
WP(C) NO. 4614 OF 2025
2
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.4614 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 9
Ares and 19 square metres of land comprised in Re-
survey No.331/3-1 in Panakkad Village in Malappuram
covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The property is a
converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation.
However, the respondents have erroneously classified
the property as 'paddy land' and included it in the data
bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the
petitioner had submitted a Form-5 application under
Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the
impugned Ext.P2 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application, without
2025:KER:52205
WP(C) NO. 4614 OF 2025
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He
has also not rendered any independent finding regarding
the nature and character of the property as on
12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P2 order is illegal and arbitrary,
and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's specific case is that, his
property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously
classified in the data bank as paddy land. Even though
the petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application, to
exclude the property from the data bank, the same has
been rejected by the authorised officer without any
application of mind.
4. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this
2025:KER:52205
WP(C) NO. 4614 OF 2025
Court has emphatically held that, it is the nature, lie,
character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is
suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the
date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant
criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional
Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read
the decisions of this Court 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 K.K v. The
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext.P2 order establishes that the authorised
officer has not directly inspected the property or called
for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the
2025:KER:52205
WP(C) NO. 4614 OF 2025
property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of
the property from the data bank would adversely affect
the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by solely
relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the
impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied
that the impugned order has been passed without any
application of mind, and the same is liable to be quashed
and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the
matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to
the principles of law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions and the materials available on
record.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the
following manner:
(i) Ext.P2 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form-5 application, in
2025:KER:52205
WP(C) NO. 4614 OF 2025
accordance with law. It would be up to the
authorised officer to either directly inspect the
property or call for satellite images, as per the
procedure provided under Rule 4(4f), at the
expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite
images, he shall consider the Form-5 application,
in accordance with law and as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within three months from
the date of the receipt of the satellite images. In
case he directly inspects the property, he shall
dispose of the application within two months
from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
dkr
2025:KER:52205
WP(C) NO. 4614 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4614/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE PANAKKAD VILLAGE IN RESPECT OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DATED 06-04-2024
EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 21-10-2024
EXHIBIT P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE
DATED 10-02-2003 ISSUED BY THE LAND
TRIBUNAL, MANJERI
