Kerala High Court

Jaffer Ali. S vs The District Collector on 16 June, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

WP(C) NO. 4585 OF 2024                 1


                                                              2025:KER:42355

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

     MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                         WP(C) NO. 4585 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

             JAFFER ALI. S,
             AGED 54 YEARS
             S/O. SULAIMAN.S, CHIKKANAMPARA HOUSE,
             KOLLANGODE-1, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678506

             BY ADV SMT.ARYA ASHOKAN
RESPONDENTS:
     1    THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          CIVIL STATION PALAKKAD, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD
          DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
     2    THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          PALAKKAD REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARAKKUNNAM,
          VIDYUT NAGAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
     3    THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
          CHITTUR TALUK OFFICE, CHITTUR-GOPALAPURAM ROAD,
          CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678101
     4    THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          KOLLANGODE-1 VILLAGE OFFICE, NEAR SUB TREASURY,
          KOLLANGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678506
     5    THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
          KOLLANGODE KRISHI BHAVAN, KOLLANGODE, PALAKKAD
          DISTRICT, PIN - 678506
     6    THE DIRECTOR,
          KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CENTRE
          (KSREC), VIKAS BHAVAN, PALAYAM P.O,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

             BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
             SRI.VISHNU S CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   16.06.2025,   THE    COURT   ON       THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 4585 OF 2024        2


                                                 2025:KER:42355



                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of June, 2025

The writ petition is filed to quash Exts.P3 and P6

orders and direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider the

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

4.86 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.223/10 in

Kollangode-1 Village, Chittoor Taluk, covered by Ext.P1

land tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a garden

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 filed a Form 5 application

before the 2nd respondent. But, by Ext.P3 order, the 2nd

respondent had rejected the same. Unaware of the fact

that the application was rejected, the petitioner again

2025:KER:42355

submitted Ext.P4 application (Form 5) before the 2 nd

respondent. By Ext.P5 judgment, this Court had directed

the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 application

expeditiously. Pursuant to the directions in Ext.P5

judgment, the 2nd respondent has passed Ext.P6 order

rejecting the Form 5 application on the main ground that

Ext.P3 order has already been passed against the

petitioner. Therefore, the second Form 5 application is

not maintainable. Exts.P3 and P6 are arbitrary and ex-

facie illegal. Hence, the writ petition.

3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter

affidavit, inter alia, stating that, the petitioner has

suppressed the fact regarding the passing of Ext.P3

order before this Court at the time of filing the writ

petition leading to Ext.P5 judgment. The 2 nd respondent

had rejected Ext.P4 application, because the petitioner

has not challenged Ext.P3 order. There is no illegality in

Ext.P6 order. Therefore, the writ petition may be

dismissed.

2025:KER:42355

4. Heard; the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that, it is only because the petitioner was unaware

of the passing of Ext.P3 order, because he was not served

with the copy of the order. That is why the petitioner

again filed Ext.P4 application and the writ petition. This

Court allowed the writ petition by directing the 2 nd

respondent to consider Ext.P4 application expeditiously. It

was only on receipt of Ext.P6 order that the petitioner

learnt of the passing of Ext.P3 order. The petitioner has

not suppressed any material facts. The 2 nd respondent has

not directly inspected the property, called for the satellite

images or rendered any independent finding regarding the

nature and the character of the petitioner's property as on

12.08.2008, or whether the exclusion of the property from

the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation

in the locality. Therefore, the writ petition may be

allowed.

2025:KER:42355

6. The learned Senior Government Pleader

submits that, the petitioner ought to have challenged

Ext.P3 order. Therefore, there is suppression of the

material facts in the writ petition.

7. Ext.P3 order substantiates that the 2nd

respondent has not directly inspected the property or

called for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule

4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, he had passed the order based

on the observations of the Local Level Monitoring

Committee (LLMC) and the report of the Agricultural

Officer. As per Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, it is imperative on

the part of the 2nd respondent to have directly inspected

the property or called for the satellite images. He had also

not rendered any independent finding regarding the

nature and the 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. I accept the contention of the petitioner

that it is only because he was not served with Ext.P3

2025:KER:42355

order, he bona fidely again filed Ext.P4 application, which

was rejected by Ext.P6 order.The Ext.P6 order was passed,

for the reason that Ext.P3 order was already passed.

8. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this

Court has 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 Collector,

Ernakulam and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).

9. On an overall consideration of the facts,

especially that the 2nd respondent has not rendered any

independent finding regarding the nature and the

character of the property, that he has not directly

2025:KER:42355

inspected the property or called for the satellite images,

I am satisfied that Ext.P3 order and the subsequent Ext.P6

order have been passed without any application of mind,

and the same are liable to be quashed and the 2 nd

respondent be directed to reconsider the Form 5

application submitted by the petitioner, 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:

(i). Ext.P3 and P6 orders are quashed.

(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is

directed to reconsider the earlier filed Form 5

application and Ext.P4 as a composite application. 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:42355

(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. 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