Kerala High Court
Ummar vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54021
WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
UMMAR,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O ABOOBACKER, MULLAPALLI HOUSE, CHATTIPARAMBA
PO, KODUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676507
BY ADV SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE
DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTRATE, COLLECTRATE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM
-, PIN - 676505
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM -, PIN - 679322
4 THE TAHSILDAR
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK OFFICE, SHANTI NAGAR,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM -, PIN - 679322
5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KURUVA KRISHI BHAVAN, VATTALLUR PO, KURUVA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 676507
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
2025:KER:54021
WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025
2
KURUVA VILLAGE OFFICE, VATTALLUR, MAKARAPARAMBA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676507
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54021
WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
1.41 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.19/3-2 in
Kuruva Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk, 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 ExtP2 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 3 rd respondent has
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P2 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
2025:KER:54021
WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025
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.
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
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
2025:KER:54021
WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025
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.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 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
2025:KER:54021
WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025
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 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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.P2
application, in accordance with law and as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three
2025:KER:54021
WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025
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
rmm/21/7/2025
2025:KER:54021
WP(C) NO. 20664 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20664/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT
DATED 4.4.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER DATED 18.4.2023
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-9-
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3 RD
RESPONDENT DATED 15.10.2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2
ND RESPONDENT DATED 12-2-
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT DATED 20/5/2025 IN WP(C)
