Kerala High Court
Abdul Majeed vs The District Collector on 29 May, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:37369
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. 38230 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
ABDUL MAJEED,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. HASSAN, KALLINGAL HOUSE,
KILLIMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680591
BY ADVS.
SHAKTHI PRAKASH
MUHASIN K.M.
AMJATHA D.A.
FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THRISSUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
THALAPPILLY TALUK OFFICE,
THALAPPILLY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680582
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THONNUKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE,
THONNURKKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680586
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
CHELAKKARA KRISHI BHAVAN, CHELAKKARA,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680586
6 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
WP(C) NO. 38230 OF 2023 2
2025:KER:37369
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT K K PREETHA
STANDING COUNSEL-SRI VISHNU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON
29.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 38230 OF 2023 3
2025:KER:37369
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order
and direct the second respondent to re-consider the
Ext. P2 application (Form 5) 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 the owner in possession of
4.05 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 202/6-2 in
Thonnurkkara Village, Thalappally Taluk, Thrissur
district, covered by Ext.P1 basic tax receipt. The
petitioner's property is a converted land. However, the
respondents have erroneously classified the property
as paddy land and included it in the data bank. In order
to remove the property from the data bank, the
petitioner had submitted Ext. P2 application before the
second respondent. The second respondent, without
2025:KER:37369
inspecting the property directly and by solely relying
on the reports of the respondents 5 and 6, has passed
the impugned Ext. P4 order. Ext. P4 order is erroneous
and illegal. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The first respondent has filed a statement, inter
alia, contending that the 5th respondent has reported
that the petitioner's property is classified as 'Nilam' in
the basic tax register and included in the data bank. Ext.
P3 report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and
Environment Centre (KSREC) shows that the petitioner's
property is fallow land and can be used for paddy
cultivation. Therefore, it has been decided not to exclude
it from the data bank. Hence, the writ petition may be
dismissed.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The petitioner's case is that, his property is a
converted land, much prior to the commencement of the
Act in 2008. No paddy cultivation is possible in the said
2025:KER:37369
property. It is without considering these matters that the
second respondent has solely relying on the report of the
fifth respondent has perfunctorily rejected Ext. P2
application.
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,
2025:KER:37369
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 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
2025:KER:37369
land cannot be said to be suitable for cultivation and may
come outside the definition of paddy land.
9. A reading of Ext. P4 order substantiates that
the second respondent has not rendered any
independent finding on the nature and character of the
petitioner's property or whether removal of the
petitioner's property from the data bank would adversely
affect the paddy cultivation. Since the second respondent
has not independently evaluated or inspected the
property and has not given any reason to take a
divergent view from what is mentioned in Ext. P3 report,
I find that the impugned order has been passed without
any application of mind; therefore, the decision-making
process is erroneous. Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P4
order 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
2025:KER:37369
record.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii). The second respondent/authorised officer
is directed to reconsider Ext. P2 application, in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate, within three months from the date of
the production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/29.05.25
2025:KER:37369
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38230/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
10.08.2020
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
05.11.2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED
04.02.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING
THE PETITIONER'S FORM 5 APPLICATION
Exhibit P5 COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
