Kerala High Court
Abdul Asees vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 15 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 25587 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:68229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 24TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25587 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ABDUL ASEES
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O AMMATH, RAYAROTHIL, MUYIPPOTH P.O., KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673524
BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SRI.SREEJITH SREENATH
SMT.RINCY KHADER
SMT.K.V.RAJESWARI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE RDO, MINI CIVIL STATION,
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, CHERUVANNUR, CHERUVANNUR P.O.
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673655
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE, CHERUVANNUR P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673655
BY SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25587 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:68229
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 3.14
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.18/22 in
Cheruvannur Village, Koyilandi Taluk, covered under
Ext.P3 land tax receipt. The property is a converted land
and 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.P5
application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P7 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for
2025:KER:68229
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 Senior 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
2025:KER:68229
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.P7 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
2025:KER:68229
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.P7 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st 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
2025:KER:68229
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
NAB
2025:KER:68229
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25587/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.121 OF 2023
DATED 17-01-2023 OF S.R.O.MEPPAYUR
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 20-02-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31-05-2025
EXHIBIT P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
15-02-2023
EXHIBIT P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.5
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28-04-
EXHIBIT P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18-04-2024
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, A COPY OF
WHICH OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT,2005
EXHIBIT P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3294/2024 DATED
29-05-2024 AND TYPED COPY
EXHIBIT P-8 TRUE COPY OF VIDE LETTER DCKKD/3740/2025-
T15 DATED 17-03-2025
