Kerala High Court
Nizar E vs The Revenue Divisional Officer ... on 7 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 23950 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:49599
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23950 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
NIZAR E,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. IBRAHIM, CHETTATHARA HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM,
PALLIPPURAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678006
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD
HEAD POST OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE PIRAYIRI GRAMA
PANCHAYAT,
AGRICULTURE OFFICE, PIRAYIRI P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678004
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PIRAYIRI VILLAGE OFFICE, PIRAYIRI P.O, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678004
GP.SMT.DEEPA V
WP(C) NO. 23950 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:49599
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 23950 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:49599
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 23950 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.0219
hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.431/7-2 in Re-
survey Block No.20 in Pirayiri Village, Palakkad Taluk,
Palakkad District covered under Ext.P1 possession
certificate. 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 a Form 5
application under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short). But,
by the impugned Ext.P3 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application, without
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has
WP(C) NO. 23950 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:49599
also not rendered any independent finding regarding the
nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008.
Hence, Ext.P3 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 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
WP(C) NO. 23950 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:49599
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.P3 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, 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,
WP(C) NO. 23950 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:49599
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.P3 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form 5 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 the Form 5 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
WP(C) NO. 23950 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:49599
production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SCB.07.07.25.
WP(C) NO. 23950 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:49599
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23950/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 21.03.2023 OF THE LAND ISSUED BY THE
THIRD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
17.01.2024 IN W.P.(C) NO. 1940 OF 2024 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2496/2024
DATED 29.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
