Kerala High Court
Faisal Rahiman vs The State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 8389 OF 2023 1
2025:KER:40630
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 8389 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
FAISAL RAHIMAN,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. HAMZA, CHERANJEERI, PERINTHATTIRI P.O,
MAKKARAPARAMBM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY
THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SINSARUL HAQ, AGED 28
YEARS, VARIKKODAN HOUSE, KAKKOOTH, VALIYANGADI,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY ADVS.SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
SMT.K.K.NESNA
SMT.T.S.SREEKUTTY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676504
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
PERINTHALMANNA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679322
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER PERINTHALMANNA,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
WP(C) NO. 8389 OF 2023 2
2025:KER:40630
6 THE PERINTHALAMANNA MUNCIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALAMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 678932
BY ADVS.
R1 TO R5 BY SR.GP.SMT.K.K.PREETHA,
R6 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 8389 OF 2023 3
2025:KER:40630
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P1 order and
direct the 3rd respondent to re-consider Form 5
application submitted by the petitioner under Rule 4(d) of
the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland
Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of the
property comprised in Survey Nos. 42/1-3, 42/1-4, 42/1-5,
42/1-12 and 42/1-13 in Block No.5 of Perinthalmanna
Village, Malappuram District. The petitioner's property is
a converted land. However, the respondents have
erroneously classified the same as 'paddy land' and
included it in the data bank. In order to exclude the
property from the data bank, the petitioner had preferred
a Form 5 application before the 3rd respondent. But, by
the impugned Ext.P1 order, the 3rd respondent has
perfunctorily rejected the application, without any
application of mind. The 3rd respondent has not directly
2025:KER:40630
inspected the property or called for the satellite images
as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. In fact, by
Ext.P4 proceedings, the 6th respondent has permitted the
petitioner's neighbour to construct a building in a
property of the similar nature. Therefore, Ext.P1 may be
quashed and the 3rd respondent be directed to re-consider
the Form 5 application.
3. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement,
inter alia, stating that the petitioner's property is
classified as 'Nilam' and is included in the data bank. The
Agricultural officer has reported that the property is
situated below the road level and there are no trees or
buildings in the property. The petitioner's property is
suitable for paddy cultivation. If the petitioner's property
is excluded from the data bank, it would adversely affect
the adjacent paddy fields. Therefore, the writ petition may
be dismissed.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader of the respondents 1 to 5.
2025:KER:40630
5. The petitioner's specific case is that, his
property is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. Even though he had filed Form 5 application,
the same has been rejected by Ext.P1 order, without any
application of mind.
6. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this Court has
held that, it is 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 Collector, Ernakulam
and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
7. Ext.P1 order substantiates that the 3 rd respondent
has not directly inspected the property or called for the
2025:KER:40630
satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
The 3rd respondent has also not rendered any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the
petitioner's property as on 12.08.2008, or whether the
exclusion of the petitioner's property from the data bank
would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. Ext.P4
proceeding also shows that the 6 th respondent had issued a
building permit in favour of the petitioner's neighbour to
construct a building.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am convinced and
satisfied that Ext.P1 order has been passed by the 3 rd
respondent without any application of mind, and the same
is liable to be quashed and the 3 rd respondent/authorised
officer be directed to reconsider the Form 5 application
afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the
principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and
the materials available on record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
2025:KER:40630
(i). Ext.P1 order is quashed.
(ii). The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider 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 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. However, if 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
NAB
2025:KER:40630
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8389/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3'D
RESPONDENT DATED 03.06.2022
EXHIBIT1A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER IS DATED
NIL.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED
BY THE PETITIONER AND ATTESTED BY THE
EMBASSY OF INDIA DATED 16.01.2023
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.2015
IN WPC NO. 2935 /2015 OF HONOURABLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 6TH
RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE NEIGHBOURING
PROPERTY OWNERS DATED 18.01.2016
