Kerala High Court
Syedalavi vs Sub Collector on 12 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:67843
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 21ST BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21451 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SYEDALAVI
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED, ELIKKOTTIL HOUSE,
PERINTHALMANNA. P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY ADVS.
SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS
SMT.S.K.SREELAKSHMY
SMT.SONA SUNNY
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUB COLLECTOR
MINI CIVIL STATION, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
2 VILAGE OFFICER
PATHAIKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE,
PATHAIKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
3 AGRICULTURE OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679322
4 DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE,
STANDING COUNSEL- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21451 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:67843
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the co-owner in possession of
8.72 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.27/3A-2
and 27/3A-3 in Pathaikkara Village, in Perinthalmanna
Taluk covered under Ext. P1 land tax receipt. The
property is a converted plot and unsuitable for paddy
cultivation. In fact, the petitioner's predecessor in
interest was permitted to use 4.05 Ares of land for any
other purposes under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land
Utilisation Order, 1967 as per Ext. P2 order. After the
petitioner purchased the property, he submitted an
application in Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008
and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules", for
brevity), to exclude the entire property from the data
bank. However, by Ext.P4 order, the authorised officer
has summarily rejected the application without either
2025:KER:67843
conducting a personal inspection of the land or relying
on satellite imagery, as specifically 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 legally unsustainable.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that
the subject property is not a cultivable paddy field but a
converted plot. Nonetheless, the property has been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing an
application in Form 5 seeking its exclusion, the same has
been rejected without proper consideration or
application of mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
this Court -- including Muraleedharan Nair R v.
2025:KER:67843
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 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.
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 directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules. It is solely based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer/Village Officer, that the impugned
order has been passed. The authorised officer has not
2025:KER:67843
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 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 aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ
petition in the following manner:
i. Ext.P4 order is quashed.
ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 application in accordance with
law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
2025:KER:67843
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.
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 personally inspect the
property, the application shall be considered and
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
mtk/12.09.25
2025:KER:67843
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21451/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
08.05.2024 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE
OFFICE, PATHAIKKARA
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
K.DIS.1161/2004 DATED 19.02.2004 PASSED
BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PERINTHALMANNA
EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.
4616/2011 OF S.R.O., PERINTHALMANNA DATED
24.08.2011
EXHIBITP4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2024
PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY
