Kerala High Court
Madakkal Ali vs State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:69249
WP(C) NO. 2319 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. 2319 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MADAKKAL ALI,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O AHAMMEDKUTTY, RESIDING AT MADAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.
IRINGAVUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SULAIKHA, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O MADAKKAL ALI, AGED 62
YEARS, S/O AHAMMEDKUTTY, RESIDING AT MADAKKAL
HOUSE, P.O. IRINGAVUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676103.
BY ADV SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE RDO CIVIL STATION JUMA
MASJID, SH29, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673020
3 THAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE KOZHIKODE, OFFICE AT WAYANAD RD,
CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673020
2025:KER:69249
WP(C) NO. 2319 OF 2025
2
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KODIYATHUR VILLAGE OFFICE, KODIYATHUR, KOZHIKODE
TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673602
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN KODIYATHUR, KODIYATHUR, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673602
SMT PREETHA K K., SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:69249
WP(C) NO. 2319 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 2319 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8.68
Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No. 138/3-40 in Block
No.2 in Cheriyamundam Village in Tirur Taluk, 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 a Form-
5 application, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by
Ext.P2 order, the authorised officer has summarily
2025:KER:69249
WP(C) NO. 2319 OF 2025
rejected the application without either conducting a
personal 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.
2025:KER:69249
WP(C) NO. 2319 OF 2025
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 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.P2 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
2025:KER:69249
WP(C) NO. 2319 OF 2025
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
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.P2 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider the Form 5, in accordance with the law,
2025:KER:69249
WP(C) NO. 2319 OF 2025
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 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
dkr
2025:KER:69249
WP(C) NO. 2319 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2319/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER DATED 08.05.2023
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
27.10.2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY IN
QUESTION
