Kerala High Court
Asmabi T vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 7 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 42281 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:49726
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. 42281 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ASMABI T.,
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O ABDUL LATEEF, THAZHATHAYIL PATTATHANAM, MANNUR,
KADALUNDI, MANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -
673328
BY ADV SHRI.AJMAL P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHANMANNA,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SHORNUR-
PERINTHALMANNA RD, SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA,
KERALA, PIN - 679322
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
FOR THE CHERUKAVU VILLAGE, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 673638
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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. 42281 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:49726
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 42281 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2 Ares
and 64 Sq.meters of land comprised in Re-survey No.183/4-1
in Block No.003 of Cherukavu Panchayat, Malappuram
District, covered under Ext.P2 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.P5 application in 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.P6 order, the authorised officer has
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P5 application, without inspecting
the property directly or calling for satellite images as
WP(C) NO. 42281 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:49726
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.P6
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, her 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
WP(C) NO. 42281 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:49726
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.P6 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
WP(C) NO. 42281 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:49726
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.P6 order is quashed.
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P5 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.P5 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
WP(C) NO. 42281 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:49726
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
SCB.07.07.25.
WP(C) NO. 42281 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:49726
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42281/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TESTIMONY DT.09.10.2023 OF
THE CHERUKAVU PANCHAYATH, MALAPURAM
DISTRICT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DT.02-10-2024
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHERUKAVU
VILLAGE, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DRAFT DATA BANK
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.13-09-2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT U/S 5 (4) (I) OF THE KERALA
CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND
ACT, 2008
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, REJECTING EXT.P4
APPLICATION BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
