Kerala High Court
Ahammed Kabeer.M vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 16 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:68713
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 25TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 25228 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
AHAMMED KABEER.M
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O SAIDALAVI,THACHATH PARAMBIL HOUSE,
P.O.CALICUT AIRPORT. MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673638
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RANJITH C.
SRI.V.GANGADHARAN
SHRI.KIRAN JOHNY
SMT.SEBI S. RAJ
SMT.STEFFY JOHNY
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION.
KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673020
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR(R.R)
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673020
3 VILLAGE OFFICER ,
VILLAGE OFFICE,
OLAVANNAVILLAGE OFFICE, PIN - 673019
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE,
OLAVANNA KRISHIBHAVAN,
PIN - 673019
5 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE,VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.DEEPA V.,
STANDING COUNSEL-SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.25228 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:68713
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8
Ares and 7.28 sq. meters of land comprised in Re-
Survey Nos. 70/55 and 85/20 in Olavanna Village,
Kozhikode Taluk covered under Ext. P1 land tax
receipt. The property is a converted plot and
unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the
respondents have erroneously classified the property
as 'wetland' 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
2025:KER:68713
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:68713
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
Village Officer, that the impugned order has been
passed. The authorised officer has not rendered any
2025:KER:68713
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 second respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 application in accordance
with law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a
2025:KER:68713
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/16.09.2025
2025:KER:68713
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25228/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL11013711428/2025 DATED 07/07/2025
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA
BANK ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
24/03/2012
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF FORM.5 APPLICATION
NO.2/2023/47402 DATED 20/01/2023
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT VIDE FILE NO.3979/ 2024
DATED 17/01/2025
