Kerala High Court
Mujeeburahman C.P vs District Collector on 21 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54030
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. 28711 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
MUJEEBURAHMAN C.P,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. UNNIMOYI, CHEEDIPOTTACHEEDIPOTTA HOUSE,
CHERUVAYOOR P.O, VAZHAKKAD,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673645
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RANJITH C.
SHRI.KIRAN JOHNY
SMT.SHINY GEORGE MEKKATTUKULAM
SHRI.BINJO ANDREWS
SHRI.MAHENDRAN S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676506
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
PERINTHALMANA. MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
3 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (DM),
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(DM),
COLLECTORATE,CIVIL STATION,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
4 VILLAGE OFFICER ,
VAZHAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE ,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673634
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
VAZHAKKAD KRISHIBHAVAN,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673634
WP(C) NO.28711 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54030
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.28711 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:54030
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
16.96 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.88/7-4 in
Vazhakkad Village, Kondotty 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 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. P6 order, the second respondent 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.
2025:KER:54030
He has also not rendered any independent finding
regarding the nature and character of the property as
on 12.08.2008. Hence, Ext. P6 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
2025:KER:54030
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. P6 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
2025:KER:54030
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. P6 order is quashed.
(ii). The second 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.
2025:KER:54030
(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
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
mtk/21.07.25
2025:KER:54030
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28711/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL10071103420/2022 DATED 18/04/2022
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P3 A. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
DATA BANK DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A. TRUE COPY OF FORM.5 APPLICATION DATED
09/09/2023 I
EXHIBIT P5 A. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN
WP(C).NO.7839 OF 2024 DATED 28/02/2024
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/08/2024
