Kerala High Court
Muhammed Ashraf vs The Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional ... on 16 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 17285 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:52531
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 17285 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED ASHRAF,
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. KAMMUKUTTY NAHA, PENGATTAYIL HOUSE,
PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676303
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR
SMT.P.K.MINIMOLE
SHRI.A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
SHRI.BAPPU GALIB SALAM
SHRI.G.MOTILAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB-COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR, IRUR-
THRIKANDIYOOR RD, TIRUR, KERALA, PIN - 676101
2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER PARAPPANANGADI,
PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 676303
BY SMT.PREETHA K K, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17285 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:52531
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 36.1
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.97/2-3 in Neduva
Village, Thirurangadi Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 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 Ext.P4 application in Form 5 under Rule
4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by the
impugned Ext.P5 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P4 application, without
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
2025:KER:52531
12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P5 order is illegal and arbitrary,
and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Senior 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
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
2025:KER:52531
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.P5 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
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
2025:KER:52531
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.P5 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P4 application, in
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 Ext.P4
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
2025:KER:52531
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
NAB
2025:KER:52531
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17285/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 571/1999
OF SRO PARAPPANANGADI DATED 15.03.1999
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 03.04.2024
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
EXACT NATURE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE
VEGETATION PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
20.01.2022
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 308/2023 DATED
02.08.2023
