Kerala High Court
Dr. K. Aboobacker vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 10069 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:48949
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 10069 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
DR. K. ABOOBACKER,AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED HAJI, KALLAI HOUSE, MONGAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673642
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
SMT.R.SHABANA
SHRI.NAZEER HUZAIN.H
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHANTHI NAGAR,
PERUNTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
2 THE TAHSILDAR,PEURNTHALMANNA, TALUK OFFICE, SHANTHI
NAGAR , PERUNTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (LLMC),
MORAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
MORAYUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673642
4 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN, MORAYUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673642
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10069 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:48949
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 10069 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 11 Ares of
land, comprised in Survey No.468/24 in Morayur Village,
Kondotty Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. 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.P6 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.P8 order, the authorised officer has perfunctorily rejected
Ext.P6 application, without inspecting the property directly
or calling for 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. Hence, Ext.P8 order is illegal and arbitrary, and
WP(C) NO. 10069 OF 2025
2025:KER:48949
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 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
WP(C) NO. 10069 OF 2025
2025:KER:48949
Collector, Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Ext.P8 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 the paddy cultivation in the locality.
Instead, by solely relying on the report of the Agricultural
Officer, who in turn has relied on the observations made by
the Local Leval Monitoring Committee, 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:
WP(C) NO. 10069 OF 2025
2025:KER:48949
(i) Ext.P8 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Ext.P6 application, in accordance with
law. It would be up to the authorised officer to either
directly inspect the property or call for 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.P6 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
rkc/04.07.25
WP(C) NO. 10069 OF 2025
2025:KER:48949
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10069/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
12/04/2024 ISSUED BY THEVILLAGE OFFICER,
MORAYUR
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED
04/10/2023
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA
BANK ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE
OF THE LAND AND THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES ON THE
ADJOINING PROPERTIES
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION MAP ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER ON 19.10.2023
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION DATED
14.07.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 04.03.2024
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/03/2025 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION
OF THE PETITIONER UNDER FORM 5
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 8886 OF
2024 DATED 07.03.2024
