Kerala High Court
Musthafa vs The District Collector on 18 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:53832
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
MUSTHAFA,AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. CHEKKUTTY, MAYANGOTT, 01, ANAKUZHIKKARA,
POOVATTUPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, CIVIL
STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR,KOZHIKODE,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KUTTIKKATTOOR VILLAGE,
KUTTIKKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, SC-SRI.VISHNU S.
CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:53832
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.44130 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the co-owner in possession of 9.44
Ares of land, comprised in Re-Survey No.71/1 in Kuttikattoor
Village, Kozhikode 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 an 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.P4
order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected the
Form 5 application, without directly inspecting the property.
He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding
the nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008.
Hence, Ext.P4 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be
quashed.
WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024
2025:KER:53832
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 plethora of judicial precedents, this Court has
held that, it is 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)).
WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024
2025:KER:53832
5. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association and
Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others (2020 (2) KHC
94), a Division Bench of this Court has held that, merely
because a property is lying fallow and water gets logged
during rainy season or otherwise, due to the low lying nature
of the property, it cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land
in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken
by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional
Officer, Irinjalakuda, (2023 (6) KHC 83), holding that the
prime consideration to retain a property in data bank is to
ascertain whether paddy cultivation is possible in the land.
6. Ext.P4 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 Village Officer,
the impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied
WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024
2025:KER:53832
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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the
petitioner, 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 the Form 5 application, in
accordance with law, and as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within three months from the
WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024
2025:KER:53832
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
rkc/18.07.25
WP(C) NO. 44130 OF 2024
2025:KER:53832
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44130/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTIKKATTOOR
DATED 18.11.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KUTTIKKATTOOR
VILLAGE DATED 24.06.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.10.2021
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 31/05/2024
