Kerala High Court
Muhammed Ali vs The Director on 11 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 34805 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:67615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 20TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 34805 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED ALI,
AGED 78 YEARS
CHUNGATH HOUSE, POOKOTTUMPADAM, ANCHAMILE, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 679332
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA
KUM.NARAYANI HARIKRISHNAN
SHRI.ANISH P.
SRI.C.S.ARUN SHANKAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE, C
BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE, K.B. JACOB ROAD,
FORT KOCHI P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682001
3 AMARAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 73, KL SH 39,
POOKKOTTUMPADAM, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679332
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
AMARAMBALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PUKKOTUMPADAM, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 679332
5 AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, AMARAMBALAM MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679332
WP(C) NO. 34805 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:67615
BY ADV SRI.IMAM GRIGORIOS KARAT
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SC-SRI.VISHNU S.
CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 34805 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:67615
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 34805 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 29.14 Ares
of land comprised in Re-Survey No.377/2-1 in Amarambalam
Village, Nilambur Taluk covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt.
The property is unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless,
the respondents have erroneously classified the property as
'paddy 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.P4 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
WP(C) NO. 34805 OF 2024
2025:KER:67615
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 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
WP(C) NO. 34805 OF 2024
2025:KER:67615
to be excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Ext.P4 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 or called for the satellite
pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead,
the authorised officer has merely acted upon the report of the
Agricultural Officer without rendering 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 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:
WP(C) NO. 34805 OF 2024
2025:KER:67615
(i) Ext.P4 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 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 property
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
rkc/11.09.25
WP(C) NO. 34805 OF 2024
2025:KER:67615
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34805/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DATA
BANK ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
TYPED COPY DATED NIL
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 12.5.2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF FORM 5 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
27.1.2023
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 28.4.2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LAND OF
THE PETITIONER AND SURROUNDING AREAS
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN W.P. 28189/2022 DATED 31.7.2024
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN W.P. 4668/2024 DATED 7.2.2024
