Kerala High Court
Mansoor Ali. V vs Sub Collector on 29 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:56180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1767 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MANSOOR ALI. V.,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. ABOOBACKER HAJI, VARIKKODAN HOUSE,
CHEMMANIYOD P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679325
BY ADVS.
SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS
SMT.S.K.SREELAKSHMY
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUB COLLECTOR,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
2 AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA VILLAGE,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
4 DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SRI.K.M.FAISAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.1767 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:56180
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
12.60 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 12/4-5 in
Perinthalmanna Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk,
covered under Ext. P2 land tax receipt. The property is
a converted plot and 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.P3
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected
the application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery,
2025:KER:56180
as specifically 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 legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that
the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
2025:KER:56180
Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the competent
authority 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 merits
exclusion 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 directly 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
condition of the land as on the relevant date. There is
also no consideration of whether the exclusion of the
2025:KER:56180
property would prejudicially affect the surrounding
paddy fields or the larger agricultural ecosystem.
6. In light of the above findings, I hold that Ext.P3
order has been issued in contravention of the statutory
mandate and judicial precedents. The order is vitiated
due to non-application of mind and is liable to be
quashed and the authorised officer be directed to
reconsider the Form 5 application as per the procedure
prescribed under the Act and Rules.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P3 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 application in accordance with
law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call
for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
2025:KER:56180
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 personally inspect the
property, the application shall be considered and
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
mtk/29.07.25
2025:KER:56180
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1767/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.
4469/2023 DATED 16.09.2023 OF S.R.O.,
PRINTHALMANNA
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
06.06.2024 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE
OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2024
PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
05.12.2023 IN W.P.(C) NO.4388/2023 BY THE
HON'BLE COURT
