Kerala High Court
Anees Basheer vs State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 12617 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:44582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12617 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
ANEES BASHEER,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O BASHEER AHAMED, USHUS, ANAYIKKULAM, ALUVA, PIN -
683511
BY ADVS.
SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)
SRI.PRAFIN JOSEPH ZACHARIA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT , GOVT. SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE ,
KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER ,AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN,
KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, PIN - 673020
5 DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE(KSRSEC) ( SOUGHT TO BE
IMPLEADED )
C BLOCK VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANATHAPURAM ( SOUGHT TO
BE IMPLEADED )
WP(C) NO. 12617 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:44582
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SMT PREETHA K K SC SRI VISHNU S
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 12617 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:44582
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.12617 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order and
direct the 3rd respondent to re-consider Ext.P4 application
submitted by the petitioner in Form 5 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 8.70
Ares of land comprised in Resurvey Nos.54/48 and 54/49
of Vengeri Village, Kozhikode Taluk, Kozhikode District
covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner's
property is a garden land. The respondents have
erroneously classified the same as 'paddy land' and
included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from
the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4
application before the 3rd respondent. But, by the
impugned Ext.P5 order, the 3rd respondent has
perfunctorily rejected Ext.P4 application without any
WP(C) NO. 12617 OF 2024
2025:KER:44582
application of mind. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's specific case is that his property
is a converted land. In fact, in the data bank it has been
shown as converted land. Notwithstanding the same, the
petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 application to exclude the
property from the data bank. But, the 3rd respondent,
without directly inspecting the property or calling for the
satellite images, has rejected Ext.P4 application.
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
WP(C) NO. 12617 OF 2024
2025:KER:44582
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and
others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
6. Ext.P5 order substantiates that the 3rd
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
removal of the petitioner's property from the data bank
would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality,
if any. Therefore, I am convinced and satisfied that Ext.P5
order has been passed 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 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.P5 order is quashed.
WP(C) NO. 12617 OF 2024
2025:KER:44582
(ii). The Convener of the 4 th
respondent/Agricultural
Officer is directed to produce Ext.P6 KSREC report
before the 3rd respondent within three weeks from
the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
(iii) The 3rd respondent is directed to either directly
inspect the property or rely on Ext.P6 report and
dispose of Ext.P4 application, in accordance with
law, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate
within two months from the date of receipt of the
KSREC report from the Agricultural Officer.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/20.06.25
WP(C) NO. 12617 OF 2024
2025:KER:44582
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12617/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
26.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VENGERI
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING CERTIFICATE
DATED 18.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
KOZHIKODE
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK PUBLISHED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5
DATED 03.06.2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2023 OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16.1.2025 OF
KSRSEC
