Kerala High Court
Abdul Latheef vs Deputy Collector (L.R) on 17 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO.18165 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:42803
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18165 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ABDUL LATHEEF,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. RUKHIYA UMMA, PALLIMANJAYALIL HOUSE,
KUDALLUR POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679554
BY ADVS. SRI.R.SREEHARI
SHRI.HAMZA A.V.
SMT.APARNA M.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.R),
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FOR PATTAMBI TALUK,
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, COLLECTORATE POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY
LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008),
ANAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR -AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN-ANAKKARA,
ANAKKARA POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679551
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN - ANAKKARA,
ANAKKARA POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679551
WP(C) NO.18165 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:42803
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
ANAKKARA VILLAGE, ANAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE,
ANAKKARA POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679551
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.18165 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:42803
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 order and
direct the 1st respondent to re-consider Ext.P2 application
(Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008
('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is the co-owner in possession of
25.20 Ares of land in Anakkara Village, Pattambi Taluk,
covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. 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 submitted
Ext.P2 application before the 1st respondent. But, by the
impugned Ext.P3 order, the 1st respondent has
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P2 application, without any
application of mind. Ext.P3 order is manifestly wrong and
arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
2025:KER:42803
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's specific case is that, his property
is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation.
Even though he had submitted Ext.P2 application, the
same has been rejected by the 1st respondent,
without directly inspecting the property or calling for the
satellite images.
5. 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)).
2025:KER:42803
6. Ext.P3 order substantiates that the 1st respondent
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 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. It is by solely relying on
the report of the Agricultural Officer that the impugned
order has been passed. Hence, I am satisfied that there
has been total non-application of mind in passing Ext.P3
order, which is liable to be quashed and the 1 st
respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider the
matter 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:
(i). Ext.P3 order is quashed.
2025:KER:42803
(ii). The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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.P2 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:42803
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18165/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
05/05/2025 ISSUED FROM THE ANAKKARA
VILLAGE OFFICE, IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER AND OTHERS , EVIDENCING THE
PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE PERIOD 2025-
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
13/09/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN
FORM NO.5 OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF
PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES,2008 BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT WITH FILE NO.294/2024 DATED
10/09/2024 (APPLICATION NO. 9/2023/302466)
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED AS 2022 (7)
KHC 591 [ARTHASASTHRA VENTURES (INDIA) LLP
-VS- STATE OF KERALA]
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED AS 2023 (4)
KHC 524 [MURALEEDHARAN NAIR.R - VS-
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER]
