Kerala High Court
Haneefa vs The District Collector on 27 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:36822
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 34127 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
HANEEFA,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED, KUNNATHU HOUSE, VALAVANNOOR, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673551
BY ADVS.
MUHASIN K.M.
FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,CIVIL STATION,
WAYANAD ROAD,ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD,ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
KOZHIKODE TALUK OFFICE, WAYANAD RD, CIVIL STATION,
ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KAKKODI VILLAGE OFFICE, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE- 673611
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KAKKODI KRISHIBHAVAN, KOZHIKODE - BALUSSERY
ROAD,KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673611
WP(C) No.34127 of 2024 2
2025:KER:36822
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.34127 of 2024 3
2025:KER:36822
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 order and
direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application
(Form 5) submitted 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 6.875
Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.72/1 and 73/1 of
Kakkodi Village, Kozhikkode Taluk, Kozhikkode District,
covered by Ext. P1 tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a
garden land. However, the respondents have erroneously
classified the petitioner's property as 'Nilam' and included it
in the data bank. In the said background, the petitioner had
submitted Ext. P2 application to remove the property from
the data bank. The 2nd respondent, solely based on the
reports of the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer,
who have reported that the petitioner's property is water
logged and was converted after 2008, has passed Ext.P3
order. The 2nd respondent has not independently evaluated
2025:KER:36822
the nature and character of the petitioner's property,
inspected the property or called for satellite images as
envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Ext.P3 is passed
without application of mind. Therefore, Ext.P3 order may
be quashed.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's case is that, his property is a
garden land and cannot be used for any paddy cultivation.
The 2nd respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext. P2
application, solely based on the reports of the Village officer
and the Agricultural Officer.
5. In a plethora of judicial precedents, 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),
2025:KER:36822
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. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents
Association and Another v. District Collector,
Ernakulam and others (2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division
Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a property
is lying fallow and gets waterlogged during the rainy season
or otherwise, due to the low-lying nature of the property, the
property cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land in
contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken
by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue
Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda, (2023 (6) KHC 83),
holding that the prime consideration to retain a property in
data bank is to ascertain whether paddy cultivation is
possible in the land.
7. A reading of Ext.P3 order would substantiate that
the 2nd respondent has not rendered any finding regarding
the nature, character or lie of the petitioner's property as on
2025:KER:36822
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. He has also not directly
inspected the property or called for satellite images from the
7th respondent as envisaged under Rule 4(4f). Therefore, I
hold that there has been total non-application of the mind in
passing Ext.P3 order. Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P3 order
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.P3 order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext. P2 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
2025:KER:36822
under Rule 4(4f) at the expense of the petitioner.
(iii). If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider Ext. P2 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. In case, if
he proposes to directly inspect the property, he shall
dispose of Ext.P2 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
AJ
2025:KER:36822
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34127/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 06.03.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 03.04.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
