Kerala High Court
Abdul Azeez K.V vs Sub Collector (The Revenue Divisional ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13146 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
ABDUL AZEEZ K.V.,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. BAPPUHAJI, KAKKIDITHODIVALAPPIL, ANAKKARA
VILLAGE, PATTAMBI TALUK, KUDALLUR P.O., PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 679554
BY ADVS.
SHRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
SMT.K.S.SMITHA
SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
SHRI.GENTLE C.D.
SHRI.BIJOY SAM GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUB COLLECTOR (THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER),
OTTAPPALAM, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER & CONVENOR,
KRISHI BHAVAN, ANAKKARA, KUMBIDI.P.O., PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 679553
3 THE DISTRICT LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
[CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY
LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008] REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL
DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
1ST FLOOR, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, VIKAS BHAVAN,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR
2025:KER:66854
WP(C) NO. 13146 OF 2023
2
SMT.JESSY S. SALIM, GP.
SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 09.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:66854
WP(C) NO. 13146 OF 2023
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.13146 of 2023
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.1726
hectares of land comprised in Survey Nos.291/3A-3,
291/3A-4, 291/3B-2 and 291/1-2 of Anakkara Village,
Pattambi Taluk, covered under Ext.P4 possession
certificate. The properties are converted land and is
unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the
respondents have erroneously classified the properties as
'wetland' 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 an
application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
2025:KER:66854
WP(C) NO. 13146 OF 2023
However, by Ext.P6 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a 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 properties are not a cultivable paddy fields, but
are converted plots. Nonetheless, the properties have
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
2025:KER:66854
WP(C) NO. 13146 OF 2023
mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including the decisions 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] -- 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.P6 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 properties
or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
2025:KER:66854
WP(C) NO. 13146 OF 2023
4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has
merely acted upon the report of the Agricultural Officer.
The authorised officer has not rendered any 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 properties 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.P6 order is quashed.
2025:KER:66854
WP(C) NO. 13146 OF 2023
(ii) The 1st respondent authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form 5, in accordance with the law,
by either conducting a personal inspection of the
properties or calling for the satellite pictures as
provided under 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 inspect the properties
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
dkr
2025:KER:66854
WP(C) NO. 13146 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13146/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.4265/2007 OF
SRO, THRITHALA EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF
THE PETITIONER ON 30.10.2007
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.224/2010 OF
SRO, THRITHALA EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF
THE PETITIONER ON 14.01.2010
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.990/2010 OF
SRO, THRITHALA EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF
THE PETITIONER ON 14.01.2010
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 22.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, ANAKKARA VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 19.08.2019
MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO
THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.555/2023
DATED 11.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION
REFERRED TO IN EXHIBIT.P5 REQUEST
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.03.2023
SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
13.12.2022
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P.(C)
NO.32815/2019 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON
03.12.2019
