Kerala High Court
Assainar Muhammed vs Sub Collector on 15 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:68281
WP(C) NO. 24913 OF 2025
1
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. 24913 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ASSAINAR MUHAMMED
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, MUNDODAN HOUSE, KARULAI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679344
BY ADVS.
SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS
SMT.S.K.SREELAKSHMY
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUB COLLECTOR
PERINTHALMANNA, SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
2 ASGRICULTURE OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, KARULAI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
679344
3 VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, KARULAI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
679344
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
2025:KER:68281
WP(C) NO. 24913 OF 2025
2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:68281
WP(C) NO. 24913 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
20.52 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 141/2-1 in
Karulai Village, Nilambur Taluk, covered under Ext.P1
possession certificate. 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 ExtP4 application in Form 5, under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P5 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the
application without either conducting a personal
2025:KER:68281
WP(C) NO. 24913 OF 2025
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 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],
2025:KER:68281
WP(C) NO. 24913 OF 2025
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.P5 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
2025:KER:68281
WP(C) NO. 24913 OF 2025
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.P5 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 from the date of
2025:KER:68281
WP(C) NO. 24913 OF 2025
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
rmm/15/9/2025
2025:KER:68281
WP(C) NO. 24913 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24913/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
ExhibitP1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 07.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT
ExhibitP2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
ExhibitP4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
31.01.2023 UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION
OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT, 2008
ExhibitP5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2024
PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
