Kerala High Court
Shiyad Ahammed V vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 14 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 37547 of 2025
1
2025:KER:76088
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 22ND ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 37547 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
SHIYAD AHAMMED V
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. SIDHEEQUE, VADAKKAN, TIRUR TALUK,
INDIANOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676503
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAMEES P.K.
SHRI.ADITHYA VARMA S.
RESPONDENT(S):
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTTAKKAL MUNICIPALITY,
KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676503
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KOTTAKKAL VILLAGE, KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676503
BY ADV. SR GP, SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 37547 of 2025
2
2025:KER:76088
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 37547 of 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records
leading to Exhibit P4 and quash the same as arbitrary,
illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice;
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1 st
respondent to reconsider Exhibit P2 application, afresh
and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with
law, after properly considering the real nature of property
and all other relevant materials;
iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case;
iv) Exempt the petitioner from producing the
English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along
with this writ petition and the petitioner further
undertakes that he is ready and willing to produce
English Translation of Malayalam documents as and
when required;"[SIC]
2025:KER:76088
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order
passed by the 1st respondent rejecting Form - 5
application submitted by him under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008
('Rules', for brevity). The main grievance of the
petitioner is that the authorised officer has not
considered the contentions of the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused the impugned order. I am
of the considered opinion that the authorised officer has
failed to comply the statutory requirements. The
impugned order is passed by the authorised officer solely
based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. 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. There
is no independent finding regarding the nature and
character of the land as on the relevant date by the
authorised officer. Moreover, the authorised officer has
2025:KER:76088
not considered whether the exclusion of the property
would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.
5. This Court 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], observed 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. The impugned order is not
in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court in
the above judgments. Therefore, I am of the considered
opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the
following manner:
1. Ext.P4 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 Form - 5
2025:KER:76088
application in accordance with law. The
authorised officer shall either conduct a
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.
3. 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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 14.10.2025
Judgment dictated 14.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 14.10.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 15.10.2025
2025:KER:76088
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37547/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
3277/2022 OF KOTTAKKAL SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION
(NO.7/2023/997799) SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 02/03/2023
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO. 7974 OF 2023 DATED 08/03/2023
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER
DATED 01/09/2023
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 18/05/2023
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.01.2024 IN W.P.(C) NO.2162 OF 2024
