Kerala High Court
Shahul Hameed S vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54882
WP(C) NO. 14762 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. 14762 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SHAHUL HAMEED S,
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O.SULAIMAN RAWTHER,5/269,‘ ANEESH',
ODUVAYUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SRI.SREEJITH SREENATH
SMT.K.V.RAJESWARI
SMT.RINCY KHADER
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIDUTH
NAGAR, PARAKUNNAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678002
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KODUVAYUR P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678501
GP.SMT.DEEPA V.,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54882
WP(C) NO. 14762 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
6.57 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.104/30
and 664/34 of Koduvayur-I Village, Chittur Taluk,
covered under Ext.P2 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 a Form 5
application, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However,
by Ext.P5 order, the authorised officer has summarily
rejected the application without either conducting a
2025:KER:54882
WP(C) NO. 14762 OF 2024
personal inspection of the land or calling for the
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
2025:KER:54882
WP(C) NO. 14762 OF 2024
of this Court - including the decisions 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
[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.P5 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
2025:KER:54882
WP(C) NO. 14762 OF 2024
the report of the Agricultural Officer, who in turn has
stated to have perused the satellite pictures received
from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and
Environment Centre (KSREC), 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 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:
2025:KER:54882
WP(C) NO. 14762 OF 2024
(i) Ext. P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form 5 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
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:54882
WP(C) NO. 14762 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14762/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 942/2009
DATED 20-04-2009 OF S.R.O.KODUVAYUR
Exhibit P2 . TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 03-04-2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, KODUVAYUR-I VILLAGE
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION DATED
09-02-2022 ALONG WITH A REPORT OF THE
KSREC
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER
NO.RDOPKD/2329/2021 DATED 12-12-2022
