Kerala High Court
Sufina Beevi vs The District Collector on 13 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:75646
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 21ST ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 29603 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SUFINA BEEVI
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O. SATHAR, VERUPURATH HOUSE,
PATTAMBI TALUK, VILAYUR P.O,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679309
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTRATE ROAD, UP HILL,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PERINTHALMANNA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
SHORNUR - PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
3 THE TAHSILDAR
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK OFFICE, SHORNUR -
PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PULAMANTHOLE VILLAGE OFFICE,
PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679323
WP(C) NO.29603 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:75646
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
PULAMANTHOLE KRISHI BHAVAN, PERINTHALMANNA ROAD,
PULAMANTHOLE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679323
6 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.29603 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:75646
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
6.07 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 34/6-6 in
Pulamanthole Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk, covered
under Ext. P1 land tax receipt. The property is a
converted plot and 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:75646
personal inspection of the land or relying on satellite
imagery, as specifically 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 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.
2025:KER:75646
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 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
2025:KER:75646
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 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 Ext.P2 application in accordance
with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
2025:KER:75646
personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call
for the satellite pictures, 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/13.10.25
2025:KER:75646
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29603/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
27.04.2021
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
29.04.2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
