Kerala High Court
Karuppamveettil Basheer vs The District Collector on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54880
WP(C) NO. 39082 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39082 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
KARUPPAMVEETTIL BASHEER,
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O. ABDHUL RAHMAN, RAHIM MANZIL, CHOOLPURAM,
PUTHENPALLY P O, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680103
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
KUNNAMKULAM TALUK OFFICE, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680503
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHOWANNUR VILLAGE OFFICE, KUNNAMKULAM -
WADAKKANCHERY ROAD, CHOWWANNUR, THRISSUR, PIN -
2025:KER:54880
WP(C) NO. 39082 OF 2024
2
680517
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
CHOWANNUR KRISHI BHAVAN, CHOWANNUR, THRISSUR, PIN
- 680517
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
GP.SMT.DEEPA V.,
SC-SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54880
WP(C) NO. 39082 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
25.09 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 276/5-1 of
Chowannur Village, Kunnamkulam Taluk, covered
under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The property is a
converted land and is unsuitable for paddy cultivation.
Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously
classified the property as 'paddy land' and included it
in the data bank maintained under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008,
and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules', for
brevity). To exclude the property from the data bank,
the petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application in
Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by
Ext.P3 order, the authorised officer has summarily
rejected the application without either conducting a
personal inspection of the land or calling for the
2025:KER:54880
WP(C) NO. 39082 OF 2024
satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any
independent finding regarding the nature and
character of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008 - the
date the Act came into force. The impugned order,
therefore, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law and
liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's principal contention is that the
applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the
Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected
the same without proper consideration or application of
mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court - including the decisions in Muraleedharan
Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
2025:KER:54880
WP(C) NO. 39082 OF 2024
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad
[2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue
Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1)
KLT 433] - that the authorised officer is obliged to assess
the nature, lie and character of the land and its
suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which
are the decisive criteria to determine whether the
property is to be excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P3 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory
requirements. There is no indication in the order that
the authorised officer has personally inspected the
property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised
officer has merely acted upon the report of the
Agricultural Officer without rendering any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the land
as on the relevant date. There is also no finding whether
the exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect
2025:KER:54880
WP(C) NO. 39082 OF 2024
the surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above
findings, I hold that the impugned order was passed in
contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid
down by this Court. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated
due to errors of law and non-application of mind, and is
liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised
officer is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5
application as per the procedure prescribed under the
law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 application, in accordance with the
law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the
property or calling for the satellite pictures as provided
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the
petitioner.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the
2025:KER:54880
WP(C) NO. 39082 OF 2024
application shall be disposed of within three months
from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other
hand, if the authorised officer opts to inspect the
property personally, the application shall be disposed of
within two months from the date of production of a copy
of this judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/25/7/2025
2025:KER:54880
WP(C) NO. 39082 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39082/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
15.06.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
04.10.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
