Kerala High Court
Sakkeer P. K vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:50866
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 14949 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SAKKEER P. K.,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O HAMSA HAJI,
RESIDING AT PANNIKANDATHIL HOUSE,
VAILATHUR, ATHANIKKAL, PONMUNDAM P.O.,
PONMUNDAM, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676106
BY ADV SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR, OFFICE OF THE RDO,
TIRURTHRIKANDIYOOR ROAD, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676101
3 THAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE TIRUR, OFFICE AT TIRUR
MINI CIVIL STATION OFFICE, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN PONMUNDAM, VAILATHUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676106
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PONMUNDAM VILLAGE OFFICE, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676106
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.14949 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:50866
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
16.29 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.25/2-1 in
Ponmundam Village, Tirur 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 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. P2 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 also
not rendered any independent finding regarding the
2025:KER:50866
nature and character of the property as on 12.08.2008.
Hence, Ext.P2 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
2025:KER:50866
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. P2 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
2025:KER:50866
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. P2 order is quashed.
(ii). The second 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.
2025:KER:50866
(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 production of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/10.07.25
2025:KER:50866
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14949/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10.05.2024
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY IN
QUESTION
