Kerala High Court
Muhammad Hussain vs The Sub Collector (Rdo), Ottapalam on 24 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 4139 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:45588
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4139 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O SAIDALAVI, ANAMADATHIL HOUSE, MELE PATTAMBI P O,
PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679306
BY ADV SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR (RDO), OTTAPALAM,
COURT ROAD, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DT., PIN - 679101
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (LR) R.D.O,
U/S 2(XVA) OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND
AND WET LAND ACT, (FOR PATTAMBI TALUK), CIVIL
STATION, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITARING COMMITTEE,
PATTAMBI REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, PATTAMBI P O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
679303
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PATTAMBI VILLAGE OFFICE, PATTAMBI P.O, PALAKKAD DT.,
PIN - 679303
5 DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CENTRE,
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033
BY SMT.PREETHA K K, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
24.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 4139 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:45588
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P1 order and
direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider the Form 5
application submitted by the petitioner under Rule 4(4d)
of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland
Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of
12.75 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.91/2A and
91/2B in Pattambi Village, Patambi Taluk, covered
under Ext.P2 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 submitted
a Form 5 application before the 2nd respondent. But, by
the impugned Ext.P1 order, the 1st respondent has
perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application, without any
2025:KER:45588
application of mind. Ext.P1 order is ex facie illegal and
arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement
asserting that, the Agricultural Officer has reported that
the petitioner's property was not converted prior to 2008
therefore, the property cannot be excluded from the data
bank.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. The petitioner's specific case is that, his
property is a garden land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. Even though he had submitted a Form 5
application, the 2nd respondent without directly inspecting
the property or calling for satellite images as envisaged
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, has rejected the Form 5
application.
6. 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
2025:KER:45588
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 2nd
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 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 in the locality. Thus, I am convinced and
2025:KER:45588
satisfied that Ext.P1 order has been passed without any
application of mind, and the same is liable to be quashed
and the 2nd 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.P1 order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd 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.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider the Form 5
application, in accordance with law and as
2025:KER:45588
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:45588
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4139/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/5/2023
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE
FORM 5 APPLICATION
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE
PETITIONER'S LAND DATED 6/5/2023
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF PETITIONER'S
PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER DATED 16/8/2023
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C NO.
5969/2024 DATED 15/2/2024 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
