Kerala High Court
Abdul Kareem vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:73350
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. 25973 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ABDUL KAREEM
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED MUSLIYAR,
MANALPARAMBIL HOUSE, PURATHUR .P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-, PIN - 676102
BY ADV SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
THE OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION.P.O,
KOZHIKODE,, PIN - 673051
3 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, KARIVATTUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 673611
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KARIVATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673611
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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. 25973 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:73350
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5.162
Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No. 17/54 in
Karivattur Village, Kozhikode Taluk, covered under Ext.
P2 land 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 an
application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P3 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or relying
on satellite imagery, as specifically mandated under Rule
2025:KER:73350
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],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
2025:KER:73350
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.P3 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
of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no
2025:KER:73350
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.P3 order is quashed.
ii. The second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the petitioner's Form 5
application in accordance with law. The authorised
officer shall either conduct a personal inspection of the
property or, alternatively, call for the satellite pictures,
2025:KER:73350
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:73350
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25973/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 4441/2012
DATED 7.11.2012 OF THE SRO KAKKOD
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KARIVATTUR, DATED 26.8.2023
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, RDO, DATED
15.5.2023
