Kerala High Court
Muhammed Jamsheer M vs State Of Kerala on 9 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:74672
WP(C) NO. 32604 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. 32604 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED JAMSHEER M
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O BEERAN KUTTY SAFA MANZIL, RAMANATTUKARA,
VAIDYARANGADI, KOZHIKODE, KERALA-, PIN - 673633
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
SMT.RHEA SHERRY
SMT.ANGELINA JOY
SMT.SHWETHA MARIA SOLOMON
SMT.UMAMAHESWARY P.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,,
PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PATTAMBI ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT,, PIN - 679322
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
CHELEMBRA VILLAGE OFFICE IDIMUZHIKKAL CHELEMBRA P
O KERALA -, PIN - 673634
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673634
2025:KER:74672
WP(C) NO. 32604 OF 2025
2
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:74672
WP(C) NO. 32604 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
3.94 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 53/2-5 of
Chelembra Village, Kondotty Taluk, covered under
Ext.P1 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.P2 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
2025:KER:74672
WP(C) NO. 32604 OF 2025
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:74672
WP(C) NO. 32604 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.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 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 without rendering any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the land
as on the relevant date. There is also no finding whether
2025:KER:74672
WP(C) NO. 32604 OF 2025
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.P3 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
petitioner.
2025:KER:74672
WP(C) NO. 32604 OF 2025
(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:74672
WP(C) NO. 32604 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32604/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED
03.07.2025
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 23.12.2022
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
13.05.2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY IN
QUESTION
