Kerala High Court
Sajid Backer vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 6 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO.425 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:73415
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. 425 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 SAJID BACKER,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. ABOOBACKER, 5/459A, NICE GARDEN,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2 RUBEENA SAJID,
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O. SAJID BACKER, 5/459A, NICE GARDEN,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
BY ADV SMT.C.K.SHERIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, K B JACOB ROAD,
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR(RR),
CIVIL STATION , KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY KRISHI BHAVAN,
KALAMASSERY, ERANKULAM, PIN - 683104
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
(KSREC),
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K., SC-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.425 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:73415
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 425 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the owners in possession of
6.19 Ares of land, comprised in Re-Survey No.506/7-2-2 of
Thrikkakkara North Village, Kanayannur Taluk, covered
under Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The property is included as
'converted land' as per Ext.P2, the data bank prepared
under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 ('Act and Rules' in short).
However, to remove the property from the data bank, the
petitioners submitted Ext.P3 application in Form 5 under
Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. Even though, in Ext.P5 report
submitted by the Kerala State Remote Sensing and
Environment Centre (KSREC), wherein it is stated that the
petitioners' property is observed under exposed soil and a
pathway is crossing through the centre of the property in
the data of 2008, the authorised officer has summarily
WP(C) NO.425 OF 2025
2025:KER:73415
rejected the application, without conducting a personal
inspection of the property. The authorised officer has not
considered Ext.P5 KSREC report in its proper perspective.
Ext.P4 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
unsustainable in law, and is liable to be quashed.
2. In the statement filed by the 2nd
respondent, it is stated that, the Agriculture Officer
reported that the applied property and the adjoining lands
are not having nature of dry land and should be retained
in data bank. The Agriculture Officer has also reported
that on considering the current state of the land and
nature of the adjoining property, it has been confirmed
that the applied property has not been converted before
2008. The Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) has
also recommended not to exclude the property from data
bank. Taking into consideration all these aspects that
WP(C) NO.425 OF 2025
2025:KER:73415
Ext.P4 order has been passed.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner's principal contention is that
the applied property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the
Form 5 application, the authorised officer has rejected the
same without proper consideration or application of mind.
5. It is now well-settled by a catena of
judgments of this Court - including the decisions 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 [2021 (1) KLT 433] - that the
authorised officer 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
WP(C) NO.425 OF 2025
2025:KER:73415
criteria to determine whether the property is to be
excluded from the data bank.
6. 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 personally inspected the property.
Instead, the authorised officer has relied on Ext.P5
KSREC report to reject the application. A reading of
Ext.P5 KSREC report reveals that the property was
observed under exposed soil, and a pathway crosses
through the centre of the property in the data of 2008.
Similarly, Ext.P2 data bank reveals that the property is
classified in the data bank as converted land.
7. In Line Properties Private Limited v.
Revenue Divisional Officer and others, Ernakulam
[2025 (2) KLT 348], this Court has categorically held that,
if the property is not classified in the data bank as "paddy
land" or "wet land", the provisions of the Act is not
applicable. In such circumstances, there is no necessity
WP(C) NO.425 OF 2025
2025:KER:73415
to file an application in Form 5. Instead, it would be up to
the applicant to file an application directly under Form 6
and get the category of the property changed in the
revenue records. Nonetheless, none of these matters have
been considered by the authorised officer, even though
the property is classified as converted land in Ext.P2 data
bank. There is also no finding whether the exclusion of the
property would prejudicially affect the surrounding
paddy land and also regarding the nature and character of
the property as on the date of coming into force on the
Act.
8. In light of the above findings I hold that
Ext.P4 order is passed in contravention of the statutory
mandates and the law laid down by this Court. Thus,
Ext.P4 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 Ext.P3 application as per the procedure
prescribed under the law.
WP(C) NO.425 OF 2025
2025:KER:73415
In the aforesaid circumstances mentioned above, I
allow the writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Ext.P3 application, in
accordance with the law and as expeditiously as
possible, by either conducting a personal
inspection of the property or referring to Ext.P5
KSREC report. The above exercise shall be carried
out within 90 days from the date of production of
copy of this judgemt.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SMF
WP(C) NO.425 OF 2025
2025:KER:73415
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 425/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
12.08.2024 FOR THE PERIOD 2024-2025 ISSUED
BY THE THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE OFFICER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATA BANK NO.TP2-1640/2021 DATED
03/02/2021
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.
5 DATED 27.01.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 20.10.2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
KSRECNO.A-172/2015/KSREC/003258/24
