Kerala High Court
Jameela vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 15 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:52203
WP(C) NO. 4624 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. 4624 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JAMEELA,
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O IBRAHIM, KOOTHRADAN HOUE, KATTUNGAL,
MUNDUPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676509
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:52203
WP(C) NO. 4624 OF 2025
2
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.4624 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 4 Ares
and 5 square metres of land comprised in Re-survey
No.331/3-3 in Panakkad Village in Malappuram District
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:52203
WP(C) NO. 4624 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, her
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 Court
2025:KER:52203
WP(C) NO. 4624 OF 2025
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:52203
WP(C) NO. 4624 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
accordance with law. It would be up to the
2025:KER:52203
WP(C) NO. 4624 OF 2025
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:52203
WP(C) NO. 4624 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4624/2025
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 21-04-2022
EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 17-10-2024
EXHIBIT P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE
DATED 10-02-2003 ISSUED BY THE LAND
TRIBUNAL, MANJERI
