Kerala High Court
Abdussalam vs State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C).No.38121 of 2025
1
2025:KER:76922
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 24TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 38121 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ABDUSSALAM
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. KUNHIMOIDHEEN, KODALADA HOUSE, KODANGAD,
NEDIYIRUPPE P.O, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 673638
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
SHRI.ABDUL KAREEM N.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA
SHANTHI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA P.O, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
3 VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHUVALLUR
PEEDIKAKANDI,POTHUVETTIPARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 673641
4 AGRICULTURE OFFICER
MUTHUVALLUR KRISHI BHAVAN, VEETTUKAD, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 673638
W.P.(C).No.38121 of 2025
2
2025:KER:76922
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.38121 of 2025
3
2025:KER:76922
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.38121 of 2025
---------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i) To call for records leading to Exhibit P4 and quash
the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ order or direction;
ii) To direct respondent No. 2 to allow Ext.P3
application by issuing writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order.
iii) To declare that property of petitioner having extent
of 5 Ares 39 Sq.m in Sy No. 325/9-1, 325/9-22 of
Muthuvallur Village, Kondotty Taluk is not liable to be
included in the data bank of Muthuvallur Village
prepared under Section 5 of the Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wet Land Act.
iv) To dispense with filing of English translation of
Exhibits in Malayalam / Vernacular language.
v) To grant such other relief in favour of the petitioner
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant on the
facts and in the circumstances of the case." (SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed
by the Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna, by which an application
2025:KER:76922
submitted by the petitioner under Form 5 in accordance to the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules,
2008, (for short, the Act and the Rules) is rejected.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the 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 not
considered whether the exclusion of the property would
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.
5. This Court This Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
2025:KER:76922
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:
a) Ext.P4 order is set aside.
b) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 - Form 5 application
submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.
The authorised officer shall either conduct a
personal inspection of the property or, alternatively,
2025:KER:76922
call for the satellite pictures, in accordance with
Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
c) 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 receipt of a certified copy
of this judgment by the petitioner.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 16/10/25
Judgment dictated 16/10/25
Draft Judgment placed 16/10/25
Final Judgment uploaded 17/10/25
2025:KER:76922
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38121/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 29.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, MUTHUVALLUR
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
26.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MUTHAVALLUR
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
30.03.2022 HAVING APPLICATION NO.
2/2022/27705 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2024
HAVING FILE NO. 2093 OF 2024 PASSED BY THE
SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGICULTURE OFFICER REPORT
RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC SATELITE REPRT
OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT
