Kerala High Court
Fawas vs State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:37269
WP(C) NO. 35049 OF 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 35049 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
FAWAS
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.VALIYAPALATHINGAL ABDULRAZAK, VALIYA
PALATHINGAL HOUSE, WEST KAIPPURAM, THIRUVEGAPURA
NEDUNGOTTUR POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY
HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ABDUL RAZAK.V.P.,
AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, VALIYA PALATHINGAL
HOUSE, WEST KAIPPURAM, THIRUVEGAPURA NEDUNGOTTUR
POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679308.
BY ADV AVANEESH KOYIKKARA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN -
695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD
COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD., PIN - 678013
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OTTAPALAM
OTTAPALAM.P.O., PALAKKAD., PIN - 679101
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR., PIN - 695033
2025:KER:37269
WP(C) NO. 35049 OF 2023
2
5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AGRICULTURAL OFFICE,
KRISHI BHAVAN, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD., PIN - 679303
6 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD., PIN - 679303
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE ,
SC SRI VISHNU S
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:37269
WP(C) NO. 35049 OF 2023
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order
and direct the 3rd respondent to re-consider Ext.P3
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
4.05 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.86/1-40 of the
Pattambi Village, Palakkad District, covered by Ext.P1
basic tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a
converted land. However, the respondents have
erroneously classified it as a paddy land and included it
in the data bank. In the said background, the petitioner
had submitted Ext.P3 application to exclude the
property from the data bank. But, the 3rd respondent
without independently evaluating the nature and
character of the petitioner's property, solely based on
the satellite images prepared by the 4 th respondent and
2025:KER:37269
WP(C) NO. 35049 OF 2023
the report of the 6th respondent, has perfunctorily
rejected Ext.P3 application by Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5
order is erroneous and arbitrary. Hence, the writ
petition.
3. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement, inter
alia, stating that the 6th respondent had submitted a
report that the petitioner's property was not converted
prior to 2008, but, the property is lying as a fallow land
since 2006 based on the satellite images of the 4 th
respondent. The 6th respondent has reported that the
petitioner's property cannot be excluded from the data
bank. Therefore, there is no error in Ext.P5 order.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The petitioners' specific case is that, his
property is a converted land and is not suitable for paddy
cultivation. The 3rd respondent without independently
evaluating Ext.P3 application, or directly inspecting the
property, has rejected the same solely based on the
2025:KER:37269
WP(C) NO. 35049 OF 2023
reports of the respondents 4 and 6.
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)).
7. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association
and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others (2020
(2) KHC 94), a Division Bench of this Court has held that,
merely because a property is lying fallow and water gets
logged during rainy season or otherwise, due to the low
lying nature of the property, it cannot be treated as
2025:KER:37269
WP(C) NO. 35049 OF 2023
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. Similarly, in Adani Infrastructures & Developers
Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Others
(2014 (1) KHC 685), this Court has succinctly held that, if
a land suitable for paddy cultivation is left uncultivated
and fallow, and if the said land is included as paddy land
in the village records, but the land is locked on all four
sides with lands which were reclaimed before the coming
into force of the Act, such land cannot be said to be
suitable for cultivation and may come outside the
definition of paddy land.
9. Ext.P5 order substantiates that the 6th respondent
has found that the petitioner's property is a fallow land.
Similarly, in Ext.P6 report submitted by the 4 th
2025:KER:37269
WP(C) NO. 35049 OF 2023
respondent, it is observed that the petitioner's property is
a fallow land since 2006, the data of 2010 shows that the
plot is having scattered vegetation with
buildings/structures in the north,south and east side and
the same pattern is continued in the data of 2016 and
2022.
10. On a consideration of Ext.P6 order, prima facie
the land is seen as a fallow land and is land locked.
11. In Niyas v. District Collector, Palakkad [2023
KHC Online 9342], this Court has also held that, if the
property is a land locked with permanent constructions
like roads and houses, the same is not suitable for paddy
cultivation.
12. On an analysis of the facts and materials on
record, particularly that the 3rd respondent has not
rendered any independent finding regarding the nature
and character of the petitioner's property, and has not
assessed the ground reality, I am of the definite view that
the 3rd respondent/authorised officer is to be directed to
2025:KER:37269
WP(C) NO. 35049 OF 2023
reconsider the matter afresh, after adverting to the law
laid down by this Court in the afore-cited decisions and
also 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 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 application, in
accordance with law, after adverting to the
principles laid down in the afore-cited decisions, at
any rate, 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
rmm/29/5/2025
2025:KER:37269
WP(C) NO. 35049 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35049/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 26.07.2023
ISSUED BY THE PATTAMBI VILLAGE OFFICE.
Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA
BANK REGISTER PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE DATED
22.02.2012.
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
02.07.2019.
Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURE
OFFICER/LLMC DATED 22.09.2020.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.(K.DIS) G2-
1285/2019 DATED 24.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT ALONG WITH
COVERING LETTER DATED 13.01.2023.
