Kerala High Court
Shajahan A vs Deputy Collector on 1 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:47909
WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SHAJAHAN A.,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RAHUMAN, KAITHARAVILAKAM, AMBALLUR,
KAZHAKKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.,
PIN - 695582.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DINOOP P.D.
SHRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
SMT.RICHU HANNA RANJITH
SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
(REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695541.
2 VILLAGE OFFICER,
KAZHAKOOTTAM VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DIST., PIN - 695582.
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KAZHAKOOTTAM AGRICULTURAL OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., PIN - 695582.
2025:KER:47909
WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.JESSY S.SALIM, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 01.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:47909
WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8.40
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.98/20 in Block
No.11 in Kazhakoottam Village, Thiruvananthapuram
Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 gift deed. The property is a
converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation.
However, the respondents have erroneously classified
the property as 'paddy land' and included it in the data
bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the
petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 5
under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But, by
the impugned Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P3 application, without
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He
2025:KER:47909
WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024
has also not rendered any independent finding regarding
the nature and character of the property as on
12.08.2008. Hence, Ext.P4 order is illegal and arbitrary,
and is liable to be quashed.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner's specific case is that, his
property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. But, the property has been erroneously
classified in the data bank as paddy land. Even though
the petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application, to
exclude the property from the data bank, the same has
been rejected by the authorised officer without any
application of mind.
4. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this
Court has emphatically held that, it is the nature, lie,
character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is
2025:KER:47909
WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024
suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the
date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant
criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional
Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read
the decisions of this Court 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 and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext.P4 order establishes that the authorised
officer has not directly inspected the property or called
for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the
property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of
the property from the data bank would adversely affect
2025:KER:47909
WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024
the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by solely
relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the
impugned order has been passed. Thus, I am satisfied
that the impugned order has been passed without any
application of mind, and the same is liable to be quashed
and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the
matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to
the principles of law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions and the materials available on
record.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the
following manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P3 application, in accordance
with law. It would be up to the authorised officer
to either directly inspect the property or call for
2025:KER:47909
WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024
satellite images, as per the procedure provided
under Rule 4(4f), at the expense of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite
images, he shall consider Ext.P3 application, in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within three months from
the date of the receipt of the satellite images. In
case he directly inspects the property, he shall
dispose of the application within two months from
the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
dkr
2025:KER:47909
WP(C) NO. 40006 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40006/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DATED
22/05/1980 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
MARKED AS EXHIBIT P-1.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
3/08/2022 ISSUED FROM KAZHAKKOOTTAM
VILLAGE OFFICE IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
MARKED AS EXHIBIT P-2
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 3/11/2022 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND
MARKED AS EXHIBIT P-3.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
4/2022/742769-I 4 (DDIS) DATED 21/08/2023
