Kerala High Court
Thwaha Muhammed vs The District Collector on 28 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:37165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 6963 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
THWAHA MUHAMMED.,
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.
MUHAMMED,PALLATHHOUSE ,KULUKKALLOOR .P.O.,MALAPPUR
AM DISTRICT, PIN - 679337
BY ADVS.
A.T.ANILKUMAR
V.SHYLAJA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676505
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 679101
3 THE TAHASILDAR (LR),
OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
NELLAYA VILLAGE, NELLAYA P. O.,OTTAPPALAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679335
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
THE NELLAYA AGRICULTURAL BHAVAN,NELLAYA P.O,
OTTAPPALAM,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673355
2025:KER:37165
WP(C) NO. 6963 OF 2025 2
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:37165
WP(C) NO. 6963 OF 2025 3
C.S. DIAS, J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 6963 of 2025
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order
and direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext. P4
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
8.12 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.28/1B-6 of
Nellaya Village, Ottappalam Taluk, covered by Ext. P1
Sale Deed. The petitioner's property is naturally
reclaimed as 'Pakka Purayidam'. However, the
respondents have erroneously classified the
petitioner's property as 'Nanja' and included it in data
bank. In the said background, the petitioner had
submitted Ext. P4 application to remove the property
2025:KER:37165
from the data bank. But, the 1st respondent, without
inspecting the property directly or calling for satellite
images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, by
solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer,
has perfunctorily rejected Ext.P4 application. Ext.P5 is
arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the writ petition
3. The 2nd respondent had filed a statement, inter
alia, stating that the 5th respondent conducted a site
inspection and found that the petitioner's property was
low -lying with a water course on one boundary and
there were waste and useless trees on the other
boundaries. It was also found that the soil had clayey
texture with high water retention capacity and there
were also water springs in the said property. If the
conversion is allowed, it would adversely effect the free
flow of water and would lead to an ecological
degradation. Therefore, the Agricultural Officer has
recommended not to remove the property from the data
bank. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
2025:KER:37165
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The petitioner's specific case is that, her
property is reclaimed dry land. However, the
respondents have erroneously classified the property as
wetland and included it in the data bank.
6. 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), 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)).
2025:KER:37165
7. 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.
8. Ext.P5 order would substantiate that the second
respondent has not rendered any independent finding
regarding the nature, character or lie of the petitioner's
property, as on the crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008, the
date of commencement of the Act, or whether the
removal of the petitioner's property from the data bank
2025:KER:37165
would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. He has also
not directly inspected the property or called for satellite
images as envisaged under the rules. Therefore, I am of
the view that there has been total non-application of the
mind in passing Ext.P5 order and 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
2025:KER:37165
of the petitioner.
(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the
satellite images, he shall consider Ext. P4
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. If the authorised officer proposes to
directly inspect the property, he shall pass order on
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
SCB.28.05.25.
2025:KER:37165
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6963/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING
NO. 1286/2022 OF CHERPPULASSERI SUB
REGISTRAR OFFICE DATED 21/3/2022.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE
YEAR 2024 - 2025 DATED 14/04/2024
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE EXHIBIT P1
PROPERTY DATED, 17/02/2023
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION
15/2023/62928 DATED 20/02/2023.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF REJECTION
IN FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 08/11/2024
