Kerala High Court
Shamsu Muhammedkutty vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 19002 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:54968
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. 19002 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SHAMSU MUHAMMEDKUTTY,
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMED KUTTY, KODUMTHARAPPILLY,
NAVAICODE, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678004
BY ADV SRI.P.R.VENKATESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678001
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, PERUVAMBA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678501
3 SECRETARY,
PERUVEMBA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PERUVAMBA,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
4 TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
5 VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERUVAMBA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678501
6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, PERUVAMBA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678703
BY ADV SHRI.R.RAJPRADEEP, SC
SMT.DEEPA V. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19002 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:54968
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
The petitioner and his wife are the co-owners in
possession of 10 cents of land comprised in Re-Survey
No.93/3 in Block No.49 in Peruvamba Village, Palakkad
Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 assignment deed and Ext.P4
possession certificate. 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.P5 application in
Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P6
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal inspection
2025:KER:54968
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, the learned Government Pleader and the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
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
2025:KER:54968
[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.P6 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 the surrounding paddy
2025:KER:54968
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.P6 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
2025:KER:54968
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
NAB
2025:KER:54968
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19002/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED JENMOM ASSIGNMENT
DEED NO.1610/1/2012 DATED 26.05.2012 OF
SRO, KODUVAYUR
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH ISSUED ON 11.10.2020
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF TANDAPER ACCOUNT NO. 5447
DATED 11.11.2020
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED
2.5.2024
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
16.11.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.08.2022 OF RDO
REJECTING APPLICATION
EXHIBIT P7 FEW PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LAND SURROUNDING
THE PROPERTY
