Kerala High Court
Rasheed V A vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:73316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27830 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RASHEED V A
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. ALIYAR, VETTATHUKADI, NELLIKKUZHI,
KOTHAMNGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
BY ADVS.
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SMT.NAVYA SEBY
SMT.AMBIKA SANKAR
SMT.ANJALY ELIAS
SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SHRI.KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW
SHRI.MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS
SMT.LEAH RACHEL NINAN
SHRI.KUNCHACKO PRADEEP
SHRI.SHINTO MATHEW ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO)
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BAVAN, MINI CIVIL STATION,
WP(C) NO. 27830 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:73316
MUVATTUPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 68667
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE
CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR., PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 27830 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:73316
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 13.56
Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 145/6-3-2 in
Block No. 1 in Eramalloor Village, Kothamangalam
Taluk, covered under Ext. P2 and tax receipt. The
property is a converted plot and unsuitable for paddy
cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have
erroneously classified the property as 'wetland' and
included it in the data bank maintained under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and
the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules", for
brevity). To exclude the property from the data bank, the
petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 5
under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P4 order,
the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery, as
2025:KER:73316
specifically mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.
Furthermore, the order is devoid of any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the land as
it existed on 12.08.2008 -- the date the Act came into
force. The impugned order, therefore, is arbitrary and
legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that
the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
2025:KER:73316
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector,
Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433] -- that the competent
authority is obliged to assess the nature, lie and
character of the land and its suitability for paddy
cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive
criteria to determine whether the property merits
exclusion from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P4 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory
requirements. There is no indication in the order that the
authorised officer has directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer, that the impugned order has been
passed. The authorised officer has not rendered any
independent finding regarding the nature and character
2025:KER:73316
of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no
finding whether the exclusion of the property would
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light
of the above findings, I hold that the impugned order was
passed in contravention of the statutory mandate and the
law laid down by this Court. Thus, the impugned order is
vitiated due to errors of law and non-application of mind,
and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised
officer is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5
application as per the procedure prescribed under the
law.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P4 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 application in accordance
with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call
2025:KER:73316
for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
iii. If satellite pictures are called for, the application
shall be disposed of within three months from the date of
receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the
authorised officer opts to personally inspect the
property, the application shall be considered and
disposed of within two months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/06.10.25
2025:KER:73316
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27830/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 402 OF 2025
DATED 29.01.2025,
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BEARING NO.
KL07060201608/2025 DATED 15.02.2025.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY FORM 5 APPLICATION BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.09.2023.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN PRATHAP
V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS REPORTED
IN 2024 SCC ONLINE KER 179.
