Kerala High Court
Azees vs Deputy Collector (L.R) on 8 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:74206
WP(C) NO. 25996 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25996 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
AZEES
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.KUTTIALI, ARAKULATHIL HOUSE, MEZHATHUR POST,
PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679534
BY ADV SRI.R.SREEHARI
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.R)
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FOR PATTAMBI TALUK, CIVIL
STATION, COLLECTORATE POST, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY
LAND AND WET LAND ACT,2008), NAGALASSERY GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR -AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN NAGALASSERY, KOOTTANAD POST,
PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679533
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN NAGALASSERY, KOOTTANAD POST, PATTAMBI
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679533
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
NAGALASSERY VILLAGE, NAGALASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE ,
KOOTTANAD POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679533
2025:KER:74206
WP(C) NO. 25996 OF 2025
2
5 FATHIMA
AGED 78 YEARS
W/O. MOITHEEN KUTTY, POOKKARA VALAPPIL HOUSE,
KOOTTANAD POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679533
6 SAFIYA
AGED 64 YEARS
D/O. MOITHEEN KUTTY, POOKKARA VALAPPIL HOUSE,
KOOTTANAD POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679533
7 SUBAIDA
AGED 63 YEARS
D/O. MOITHEEN KUTTY, POOKKARA VALAPPIL HOUSE,
KOOTTANAD POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679533
8 ABDUL KHADER
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. MOITHEEN KUTTY, POOKKARA VALAPPIL HOUSE,
KOOTTANAD POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679533
9 MUHAMMED HANEEFA
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. MOITHEEN KUTTY, POOKKARA VALAPPIL HOUSE,
KOOTTANAD POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679533
10 ABDUL AZEES
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. MOITHEEN KUTTY, POOKKARA VALAPPIL HOUSE,
KOOTTANAD POST, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679533
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. JESSY S SALIM
BY ADV SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74206
WP(C) NO. 25996 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
23.81 Ares of land comprised in Old Survey No. 16/2-1-1
in Nagalassery Village, Pattambi Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 registered sale deed, which was executed by the
respondents 5 to 10. The respondents 1 to 4 have
erroneously classified the petitioner's 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 respondents 5 to 10 had
submitted Ext.P4 application in Form 5, under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. After the petitioner purchased the
property, he also submitted Ext.P3 application.
However, by Ext.P5 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the Ext.P4 application, without
2025:KER:74206
WP(C) NO. 25996 OF 2025
either conducting a personal inspection of the land or
calling for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. But, the authorised officer has not
passed any order on Ext.P3 application. Furthermore,
Ext.P5 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 liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. 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.
2025:KER:74206
WP(C) NO. 25996 OF 2025
4. 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
criteria to determine whether the property is to be
excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P5 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 or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has
merely acted upon the report of the Agricultural Officer
2025:KER:74206
WP(C) NO. 25996 OF 2025
without rendering any independent finding regarding the
nature and character 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 circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Exts.P3 and P4 applications, in accordance
with the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of
2025:KER:74206
WP(C) NO. 25996 OF 2025
the property or calling for the satellite pictures as
provided under 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 inspect the property personally,
the application shall be 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
rmm/8/10/2025
2025:KER:74206
WP(C) NO. 25996 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25996/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED
NO.462/1/2025 OF SRO THRITHALA DATED
10/02/2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NAGALASSERY
VILLAGE OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER
WITH NO.92680601 DATED 14/03/2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
25/03/2025, WITH APPLICATION
NO.6/2025/13462 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER IN FORM NO.5 OF THE KERALA
CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND
RULES,2008 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
07/06/2024, WITH APPLICATION
NO.12/2024/92160 SUBMITTED BY THE
RESPONDENT NOS. 5 TO 10 IN FORM NO.5 OF
THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND
WET LAND RULES,2008 BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/11/2024
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH FILE
NO.1141/2024 (APPLICATION NO.
12/2024/92160)
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED AS 2022 (7)
KHC 591 [ARTHASASTHRA VENTURES (INDIA) LLP
-VS- STATE OF KERALA]
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED AS 2023 (4)
KHC 524 [MURALEEDHARAN NAIR.R - VS-
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER]
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26/05/2025
REPORTED IN 2025 KHC ONLINE 1756 (JALAJA
S.S. -VS- DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
