Kerala High Court
Abubakkar vs Deputy Collector (L.R) on 31 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:56793
WP(C) NO. 26590 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26590 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ABUBAKKAR
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.SAIDALI, UPPILIYAN KUNNATH HOUSE, SANKARAMANGALAM
POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679303
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SREEHARI
SHRI.HAMZA A.V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.R)
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FOR PATTAMBI TALUK, CIVIL
STATION PALAKKAD, COLLECTORATE POST, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY
LAND AND WET LAND ACT,2008), PATTAMBI MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR -AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN - PATTAMBI, PATTAMBI POST, PATTAMBI
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679303
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN - PATTAMBI , PATTAMBI POST, PATTAMBI
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679303
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
PATTAMBI VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION
ROAD, PATTAMBI POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD
2025:KER:56793
WP(C) NO. 26590 OF 2025
2
DISTRICT, PIN - 679303
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:56793
WP(C) NO. 26590 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
0.1336 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.130/5-1
of Patambi Village, Pattambi Taluk, covered under Ext.P1
possession certificate The property is a converted land
and is unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the
respondents have erroneously classified the property as
'wetland' 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 10.12 Ares of
land from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted a
Form 5 application, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P2 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
2025:KER:56793
WP(C) NO. 26590 OF 2025
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],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad
[2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional
2025:KER:56793
WP(C) NO. 26590 OF 2025
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.P2 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,
who in turn has acted upon the recommendation of the
Local Level Monitoring Committee. In fact, the Village
Officer is the competent authority to report on the land
because it is a wetland. The authorised officer has also not
rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and
character of the land as on the relevant date. There is also
2025:KER:56793
WP(C) NO. 26590 OF 2025
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.P2 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
2025:KER:56793
WP(C) NO. 26590 OF 2025
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/31/7/2025
2025:KER:56793
WP(C) NO. 26590 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26590/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PATTAMBI IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER WITH NO.95402701
DATED 05/07/2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT WITH FILE NO. 1696/2024
(APPLICATION NO. 2/2023/13472) DATED
31/07/2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/04/2025
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L R)
PALAKKAD TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED AS 2022 (7)
KHC 591 [ARTHASASTHRA VENTURES (INDIA) LLP
-VS- STATE OF KERALA]
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED AS 2023 (4)
KHC 524 [MURALEEDHARAN NAIR.R -VS- REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER]
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26/05/2025
REPORTED IN 2025 KHC ONLINE 1756 (JALAJA
S.S. -VS- DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
