Kerala High Court
K K Hussain vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 9 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:74679
WP(C) NO. 29133 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 17TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 29133 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
K K HUSSAIN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O KOCHAHASSAN KUNJ SAROOJ HOUSE, THATTAMALA P.O
IRAVIPURAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691020
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.S.SHAMLA
SMT.SANGEERTHANA M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, FORT KOCHI
P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE OFFICE, NGO QUARTERS,
VAZHAKKALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682021
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, VAZHAKKALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021
SR.GP SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74679
WP(C) NO. 29133 OF 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
12.87 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 488/2-3 in
Block No.8 of Vazhakkala Village, Kanayannur Taluk,
covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt. The property is
a converted land and is unsuitable for paddy
cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have
erroneously classified the property as 'paddy land' 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
2025:KER:74679
WP(C) NO. 29133 OF 2025
conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling
for the satellite pictures as 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 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.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court - including the decisions in Muraleedharan
2025:KER:74679
WP(C) NO. 29133 OF 2025
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.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
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, who in turn has relied on the recommendation of
the Local Level Monitoring Committee. The authorised
officer has not rendered any independent finding
2025:KER:74679
WP(C) NO. 29133 OF 2025
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.P4 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 application, in accordance with
the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the
property or calling for the satellite pictures as provided
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the
2025:KER:74679
WP(C) NO. 29133 OF 2025
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/9/10/2025
2025:KER:74679
WP(C) NO. 29133 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29133/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 3472/2007
DATED 26/07/2007
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
26/06/2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER IN FORM 5 BEARING
APPLICATION NO. 6/2024/2006389 DATED
08/08/2024
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT WITH FILE NO. 589/2025
DATED 05/05/2025
