Kerala High Court
Moosa Haji vs The District Collector on 20 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:34260
WP(C) NO. 16808 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16808 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MOOSA HAJI
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O YOUSUF HAJI PADIYATH HOUSE, PANAYUR P.O ,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679522
BY ADVS.
P.K.SOYUZ
E.V.BABYCHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT , PALAKKAD P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR
OTTAPALAM, RDO OFFICE, OTTAPALAM P.O, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 679101
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, VANIYAMKULAM, VANIYAMKULAM P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679522
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VANIYAMKULAM - I VILLAGE VANIYAMKULAM P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679522
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:34260
WP(C) NO. 16808 OF 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2025
The writ petition is filed to direct the 2 nd
respondent to consider Ext.P3 (Form 5) application
submitted by the petitioner under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008
('Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is in joint ownership and in
possession of 35.62 Ares of land comprised in Survey
No3/2-6 of Vaniyamkulam-I, Village, Ottapalam Taluk,
Palakkad District along with his family members, which
is covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. Even though the
petitioner's property is classified as converted land in
Ext.P2 data bank, the petitioner's land is classified as
'Nanja' ( Nilam) in the Basic Tax Register. In the said
2025:KER:34260
WP(C) NO. 16808 OF 2025
circumstances, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3
application to remove the property from the data bank.
Even though the application was submitted on 1.8.2024,
the respondents have not acted upon the same. The 4 th
respondent has issued Ext.P4 stop memo stating that the
petitioner has illegally converted the land. The inaction
on the part of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Line
Properties Pvt. Ltd vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer
and others, Ernakulam (2025 (2) KLT 348), the Act is not
applicable to the petitioner's property. Notwithstanding
the error committed by the respondents, the petitioner
has submitted Ext.P3 application to remove his property
from the data bank.
2025:KER:34260
WP(C) NO. 16808 OF 2025
5. It is the case of the petitioner that, his
property is converted land, and therefore, the Act does
not apply to his property.
6. It is trite law that, it is nature, lie, character
and fitness of the land, as available on 12.08.2008 i.e.,
the date of coming into force of the Act, that is to be
ascertained by the Revenue before taking a decision to
exclude a property from the data bank (read the
decisions of this Court in 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. In view of the law laid down in Line Properties
Pvt.Ltd (Supra), it is evident that the petitioner's
property has been erroneously included in the data bank,
as it is classified as a converted land. Therefore, it
would be up to the 2 nd respondent/authorised officer to
consider Ext.P3 application as per the principles laid
2025:KER:34260
WP(C) NO. 16808 OF 2025
down in the afore-cited decision.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i) The 3rd respondent is directed to submit a
report regarding the nature, lie and classification of the
petitioner's property to the 2nd respondent within one
month from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment. In case the 3rd respondent desires to call for
a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and
Environment Centre( KSREC), as contemplated under
Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, he shall direct the petitioner to
remit the prescribed fee, on the date of production of the
copy of the judgment. If such a report is called for, the
3rd respondent shall file his report before the 2 nd
respondent, within four weeks from the date of receipt of
the report from the KSREC ;
(ii). On receipt of the report from the 3 rd
respondent, the 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
2025:KER:34260
WP(C) NO. 16808 OF 2025
directed to consider Ext.P3 application, in accordance
with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within two months from the date of receipt of the
report from the 3rd respondent.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,
JUDGE
rmm20/5/2025
2025:KER:34260
WP(C) NO. 16808 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16808/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
23.04.2025
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
NOTIFIED DATA BANK OF VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA
PANCHAYATH DATED 24.03.2012
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO.
12/2024/864091 DATED 01.08.2024 IN FORM
NO.5 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2 ND RESPONDENT
DATED 08.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE 4 TH
RESPONDENT
