Kerala High Court
Safah vs State Of Kerala on 26 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 11916 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:46925
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 11916 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
SAFAH,
AGED 34 YEARS
D/O.ABUBACKER, RESIDING AT : KUNNUMMAL HOUSE,
THAMBANANGADI, VALLUVANGAD SOUTH P.O, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676521
BY ADVS.
SHRI.AMAL PARTHASARADHY
SRI.GIBI.C.GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE,KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CONFERENCE HALL, COLLECTORATE RD, UP HILL,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676505
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHORNUR - PERINTHALMANNA
ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
679322
4 TAHSILDAR (LR),
ERNADU TALUK OFFICE, THALUK OFFICE ROAD,
VAYAPPARAPADI, VELLARANGAL, MANJERI, KERALA, PIN -
676517
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
WP(C) NO. 11916 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:46925
VETTIKATIRI VILLAGE OFFICE, MANJERI RD, THAMBANAGADI,
PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676521
6 AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676521
OTHER PRESENT:
GP- JESSY S SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 11916 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:46925
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 11916 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order and
direct the 3rd respondent to reconsider 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 2.65
Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.140/4-9 of
Vettikkattiri Village, Eranad Taluk, Malappuram Districtv
covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner's
property is a dry land. It is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. 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 a Form 5 application before the 3rd respondent.
But, by the impugned Ext.P5 order, the 3 rd respondent has
perfunctorily rejected the application without any
WP(C) NO. 11916 OF 2025
2025:KER:46925
application of mind.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's specific case is that her property
is a converted land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation.
Even though she submitted a Form 5 application, the 1 st
respondent, without directly inspecting the property or
calling for the satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f)
of the Rules, has rejected the application.
5. In a plethora of judicial pronouncements, this
Court has held that, it is 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
WP(C) NO. 11916 OF 2025
2025:KER:46925
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. 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. Instead, by solely
relying on the report of the 6 th respondent, the impugned
order has been passed. Thus, I am convinced that there is a
total non-application of mind in passing Ext.P5 order, which
is liable to be quashed and the 3rd respondent/authorised
officer be directed to reconsider the Form 5 application, in
accordance with law, after adverting to the principles laid
down in the aforecited 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. 11916 OF 2025
2025:KER:46925
(ii). The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 application, in
accordance with law. It would be upto to the
authorised officer to either directly inspect the
property or call for satellite images as per the
procedure provided under rule 4(4f) of the
Rules 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
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
rkc/26.06.25
WP(C) NO. 11916 OF 2025
2025:KER:46925
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11916/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 04-07-2024
Exhibit P2 COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 11-02-
2024 ISSUED FROM VETTIKKATTIRI VILLAGE
OFFICE
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK
PUBLISHED BY THE PANDIKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT
IN RESPECT OF VETTIKKATTIRI VILLAGE
Exhibit P4 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S LAND
AND NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES
Exhibit P5 COPY OF ORDER NO.269/2024 DATED 14-11-2024
PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
