Abdul Azeez N U vs The Deputy Collector ( R R ) Rdo U/S 2(Xva) ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8842 Ker

Kerala High Court

Abdul Azeez N U vs The Deputy Collector ( R R ) Rdo U/S 2(Xva) ... on 17 September, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                      2025:KER:69196

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
  WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA, 1947
                       WP(C) NO. 21683 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

          ABDUL AZEEZ N U
          AGED 56 YEARS
          S/O N.A.UMMER NELLIKKATHUKUZHI HOUSE,
          PERINGHAZHA KARA,HMT COLONY P.O,
          KALAMASSERY ,ERNAKULAM
          KERALA, PIN - 683503

          BY ADVS.
          SHRI.MINSAF K. MOHAMMED
          SMT.JISHA JASLIN C.M.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR ( R R ) RDO U/S 2(XVA) FOR
          KANAYANNUR TALUK
          OFFICE OF DEPUTY COLLECTOR ( R R )
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE,
          KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682030

    2     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE OFFICE,
          KOONAMTHAI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682024

    3     THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
          KALAMASSERY KRISHI BHAVAN OFFICE,
          KANGARAPPADY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682021

    4     THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
          ( CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY
          LAND AND WETLAND ACT 2008)
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
          THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR KALAMASSERY
          KALAMASSERY KRISHI BHAVAN OFFICE,
          KANGARAPPADY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM,
          KERALA, PIN - 682021
 WP(C) NO.21683 OF 2025       2

                                                   2025:KER:69196


OTHER PRESENT:

          SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.21683 OF 2025     3

                                               2025:KER:69196

    Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025

                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner in possession of

31.28 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 240/10,

240/11, 240/12, 240/13 and 240/14-2 in Thrikkakara

North Village, Kanayannur Taluk, covered under Ext.

P3 land tax receipt. The property is a converted plot

and 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.P4 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

inspection of the land or relying on satellite imagery,

2025:KER:69196

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.

Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],

Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

2025:KER:69196

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.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 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, that the impugned order has been

passed. The authorised officer has not 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

2025:KER:69196

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.P5 order is quashed.

ii. The first respondent/authorised officer is directed

to reconsider Ext.P4 application in accordance with law.

The authorised officer shall either conduct a 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.

2025:KER:69196

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/17.09.25

2025:KER:69196

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21683/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1280/2007 OF EDAPPALLY SUB REGISTRY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1281/2007 OF EDAPPALLY SUB REGISTRY EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 01-06-2025 ISSUED BY THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE OFFICE EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 14-02-2025 IN FILE NO.469/2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NO.1117 DTD 30- 5-2017 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NO.3176 DTD 15- 12-2018 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RE-

CONSIDERATION DATED 02-04-2025 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W. P. (C) NO. 23609 OF 2023 THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA