Kerala High Court
Mohamed Haneefa vs The District Collector on 17 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 31472 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:77472
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 25TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 31472 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MOHAMED HANEEFA
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. MOIDHEEN, PERULI HOUSE, CHERIYAMUNDAM,
IRINGAVUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676103
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTRATE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
TIRUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR -
THRIKANDIYOOR ROAD, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676101
3 THE TAHSILDAR
TIRUR TALUK OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, TIRUR MINI CIVIL
BUILDING, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676101
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
CHERIYAMUNDAM VILLAGE OFFICE, CHERIYAMUNDAM, TIRUR,
WP(C) NO. 31472 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:77472
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676106
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
CHERIYAMUNDAM KRISHI BHAVAN, CHERIYAMUNDAM, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676106
6 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 31472 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:77472
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.31472 of 2025
---------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records
leading to Ext P3 order and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider
Ext P2 application and pass orders afresh after
obtaining a report from the 6th respondent, KSREC
with regard to the nature of the property as on 2008.
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 6th
respondent to file a report before the 2nd and 5th
respondent with regard to nature and lie of the
petitioner's property in 2008.
iv. To dispense with the filing of translation of
vernacular documents.
v. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this
Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case." (SIC)
WP(C) NO. 31472 OF 2025
2025:KER:77472
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed
by the 2nd respondent, by which an application 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
WP(C) NO. 31472 OF 2025
2025:KER:77472
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.
5. This Court 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:
a) Ext.P3 order is set aside.
b) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
WP(C) NO. 31472 OF 2025
2025:KER:77472
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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,
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 17/10/25
Judgment dictated 17/10/25
Draft Judgment placed 17/10/25
Final Judgment uploaded 18/10/25
WP(C) NO. 31472 OF 2025
2025:KER:77472
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31472/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
18.06.2025 ALONG WITH TYPED LEGIBLE COPY
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
28.12.2022
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
