Kerala High Court
Ali Asgar.T.K vs The State Of Kerala on 25 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:45874
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 787 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ALI ASGAR.T.K.,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. ABDU RAHIMAN, THATTARAKKATTIL,
P.O. PUTHANANGADI, ANGADIPURAM VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY HIS BROTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER, AHAMMADUL KABEER.T.K., AGED 29,
S/O. ABDU RAHIMAN, THATTARAKKATTIL,
P.O. PUTHANANGADI, ANGADIPURAM VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.FIROZ
SMT.M.SHAJNA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANNATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & SUB COLLECTOR,
PERINTHALMANNA, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679322
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, ANGADIPURAM- VALAMBOOR, PIN - 679325
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
MINI CIVIL STATION,
PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679322
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER-SMT.PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 787 of 2025 2
2025:KER:45874
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order
and direct the second respondent to reconsider Ext.
P4 application (Form 5) 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
3 Ares and 63 sq. meters of land comprised in Survey
Nos. 39/5-4, 39/5-7 and 39/6-2 of Angadipuram Village,
Perinthalmanna Taluk, covered by Ext.P2 land tax
receipt. The petitioner's property is a converted land.
It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. However, the
respondents have erroneously classified the property
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. P4 application before the
second respondent. But, by the impugned Ext. P5
2025:KER:45874
order, the second respondent has perfunctorily
rejected Ext. P4 application without any application of
mind. Ext. P5 order is erroneous and illegal. Hence, the
writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's case is that, his property is a
converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation.
Even though the petitioner had submitted Ext. P4
application before the second respondent, the same has
been rejected without any application of mind. The
second respondent has not directly inspected the
property or called for the satellite images as envisaged
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
5. In a plethora of judicial pronouncements, 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
2025:KER:45874
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)).
6. Ext. P5 order establishes that the second
respondent has not directly inspected the property or
called for satellite images as envisaged under the rule.
The second respondent has not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature and character
of the petitioner's property as on the crucial date, i.e.,
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. Therefore, I am satisfied
2025:KER:45874
that there has been total non-application of the mind in
passing Ext.P5 order, the same is liable to be quashed,
and the second 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.
(ii). The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext. P4 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. P4 application, in
2025:KER:45874
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 Ext. P4
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
mtk/25.06.25
2025:KER:45874
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 787/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO. 1584 OF
2017 DATED 26.4.2017 OF SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 16.9.2023 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE
OFFICE, ANGADIPURAM
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
DATA BANK DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, WITH ENDORSEMENT
DATED 12.12.2022
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
13.12.2022 PREFERRED BY THE POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.3.2023
HAVING FILE NO. 819 OF 2023 PASSED BY THE
SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
12.4.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE PERINTHALMANNA TALUK ADALATH
THROUGH TAHSILDAR, MINI CIVIL STATION,
PERINTHALMANNA
