Kerala High Court
R.V.Abdullah vs The Revenue Division Officer (Sub ... on 17 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:69315
WP(C) NO. 21926 OF 2025
1
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. 21926 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
R.V.ABDULLAH
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O ABDUL ASSISS MUSLILYAR, RAYINMARKKAR HOUSE,
VALAMBOOR, PATTIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN -
679325
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR
SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER (SUB COLLECTOR),
RDO OFFICE, PERUNTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 679322
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHIBHAVAN, AGADIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 679322
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, VALAMBOOR VILLAGE, VALAMBOOR,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679322
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.JESSY S. SALIM
2025:KER:69315
WP(C) NO. 21926 OF 2025
2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:69315
WP(C) NO. 21926 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
46.30 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos.196/1-
1 and 196/6-2 of Valamboor Village, covered under
Ext.P1 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.P2 application
in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by
Ext.P3 order, the authorised officer has summarily
rejected the application without either conducting a
personal inspection of the land or calling for the
2025:KER:69315
WP(C) NO. 21926 OF 2025
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:69315
WP(C) NO. 21926 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.P3 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
2025:KER:69315
WP(C) NO. 21926 OF 2025
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 circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 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
2025:KER:69315
WP(C) NO. 21926 OF 2025
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 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/17/9/2025
2025:KER:69315
WP(C) NO. 21926 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21926/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 22-09-2022.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S FORM 5
APPLICATION DATED 22-11-2022.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12-10-2024 IN
PROCEEDING NO. 3587/2024.
