Kerala High Court
Jaseem K.K vs The District Collector on 30 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 16135 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:56434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16135 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
JASEEM K.K,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.ATHRUMAN KUTTY, JAMNAS MANZIL HOUSE, PERINGOLAM
DESOM, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673571
BY ADVS. SHRI.HARISH R. MENON
SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR
SRI.A.G.PRASANTH
SMT.K.N.ABHA
SMT.ALEENA SEBASTIAN
SMT.MARY HEDWIG BABY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KUNNAMANGALAM,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673571
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KUTTIKKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673008
BY SMT.PREETHA K K, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16135 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:56434
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 72
Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.18/1A(35) in
Kuttikkatoor Village, Kozhikode 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 an extent of
19.72 Ares of 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.P8 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the application
without either conducting a personal inspection of the
land or calling for the satellite pictures as mandated
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is
2025:KER:56434
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. In the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent,
it is stated that in the inspection that was conducted, it
was confirmed that the petitioner tried to change the
nature of the property illegally after 2008. The northern
part of the applied property is paddy field and there is a
water stream flowing across the applied land. Therefore,
there is no illegality in Ext.P8 order.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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.
2025:KER:56434
5. 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], 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.
6. A reading of Ext.P8 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
2025:KER:56434
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:
(i) Ext.P8 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd 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.
2025:KER:56434
(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
NAB
2025:KER:56434
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16135/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 2140/2022
OF KUNNAMANGALAM SRO DATED 11.8.2022
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT
NO KL 11012803412/2023 DATED 05/05/2023,
EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX BY THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 THE SKETCH PREPARED BY LAND SURVEYOR
EVIDENCING A LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P4 THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE
KUNNAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH EVIDENCING
THE EXISTENCE OF BUILDINGS IN ALL 4
BOUNDARIES, OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.
342/12-13 DATED 28.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY, KUNNAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO
CONSTRUCT A BUILDING IN THE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
15/07/2023
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATA BANK
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO C7-6693/2021
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
24/10/2022
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 955271/2023/FC
DCKKD DATED 26/09/2023
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE EARTH PHOTOGRAPHS
