Kerala High Court
Hassainar vs State Of Kerala on 10 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:67070
WP(C) NO. 28560 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 19TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 28560 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
HASSAINAR,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O BEERAN, CHUNGATHU HOUSE, THEKKANKUTTUR, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676551
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JIJO JOSEPH
SHRI.C.DILIP
SRI.P.N.VIJAYAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 682031
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673020
3 TAHSILDAR,
FAROOK TALUK, FAROOK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673632
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673633
GP SMT. JESSY S SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:67070
WP(C) NO. 28560 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
15.008 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.341/9
of Ramanattukara Village, Farrok Taluk, covered under
Exts. P1 and P2 title deeds. The property is a converted
land and is unsuitable for paddy cultivation.
Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously
classified the property as 'converted 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.P3 application in Form
5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P6
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected
the application without directly inspecting the
2025:KER:67070
WP(C) NO. 28560 OF 2024
property. Even though Ext.P4 report was called from
the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environmental
Centre (KSREC), the same was not considered. Ext.P6
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 property is not a cultivable paddy field but is a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has 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
mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court - including the decisions in Muraleedharan
2025:KER:67070
WP(C) NO. 28560 OF 2024
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 property.
Even though Ext.P4 KSREC report was called for, the
same was not adverted to. Instead, the authorised officer
has merely acted upon the report of the Village Officer.
The authorised officer has not rendered any independent
finding regarding the nature and character of the
property as on the relevant date. There is also no
2025:KER:67070
WP(C) NO. 28560 OF 2024
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 circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P6 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 application, in accordance with
the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the
property or considering Ext.P4 KSREC report.
(iii) The above exercise shall be carried out within
two months from the date of production of a copy of this
2025:KER:67070
WP(C) NO. 28560 OF 2024
judgment.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/10/9/2025
2025:KER:67070
WP(C) NO. 28560 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28560/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF DOCUMENT NO 1120/2015
OF S.R.O FAROOK DATED 24.03.2015
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF DOCUMENT NO 582/2014
OF S.R.O FAROOK DATED 10.02.2014
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF APPLICATION DATED
21.02.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF REPORT DATED
26.10.2023 ISSUED FROM KSRS & EC,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA
BANK SHOWING THE DESCRIPTION OF
PETITIONER'S LAND
Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.08.2023
ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
