Kerala High Court
M Musthafa vs State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 20575 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:69162
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. 20575 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
M MUSTHAFA
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMAD MOIDEEN FAREEDHA MANZIL C.N.PURAM
GARDEN PALAKKAD, PIN - 678005
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MANU RAJ
SMT.K.VINAYA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, ROBINSON ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
TALUK OFFICE PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MARUTHAROAD VILLAGE OFFICE MARUTHAROAD POST,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, MARUTHAROAD KALLEPULLY P.O. PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678005
WP(C) NO. 20575 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:69162
SR.GP.SMT.PREETHA K.K
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. 20575 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:69162
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 20575 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 16.19
Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.192/26 in Block
No.38 of Marutharoad Village, Palakkad 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 Ext.P4 application in Form 5, under Rule
4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Ext.P7 order, the
authorised officer has summarily rejected the application
WP(C) NO. 20575 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:69162
without directly inspecting the property. Even though the
Agricultural Officer had called for Ext.P6 KSREC report,
wherein it is specifically observed that the property is
'fallow land' in the data of 2008, the authorised officer
has not considered the same. Instead, by the impugned
Ext.P7 order, the authorised officer has rejected the
application without 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 is 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.
WP(C) NO. 20575 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:69162
4. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this
Court has held that, it is the nature, lie, character and
fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for
paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming
into force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be
ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a
property from the data bank (read the decisions of this
Court 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 and others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
5. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association
and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others
(2020 (2) KHC 94), a Division Bench of this Court has held
that, merely because a property is lying fallow and water
gets logged during rainy season or otherwise, due to the
low lying nature of the property, it cannot be treated as
wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A
WP(C) NO. 20575 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:69162
similar view has been taken by this Court in Aparna Sasi
Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda,
(2023 (6) KHC 83), holding that the prime consideration to
retain a property in data bank is to ascertain whether
paddy cultivation is possible in the land.
6. Similarly, in Adani Infrastructures & Developers
Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai & Others Vs. State of Kerala &
Others (2014 (1) KHC 685), this Court has succinctly held
that, if a land suitable for paddy cultivation is left
uncultivated and fallow, and if the said land is included as
paddy land in the village records, but the land is locked on
all four sides with lands which were reclaimed before the
coming into force of the Act, such land cannot be said to be
suitable for cultivation and may come outside the definition
of paddy land.
7. A reading of Ext.P7 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to directly inspect the
property. Even though the Agricultural Officer had called
for Ext.P6 KSREC report, wherein it is specifically stated
WP(C) NO. 20575 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:69162
that the property is a fallow land in the data of 2008, the
authorised officer has rejected the Form 5 application
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.P7 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Ext.P4 application, in accordance with
WP(C) NO. 20575 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:69162
the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of
the property or considering Ext.P6 KSREC report in its
proper perspective, the above exercise shall be
completed within 60 days from the date of production
of a copy of the judgment.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SCB.17.09.25.
WP(C) NO. 20575 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:69162
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20575/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID BY THE
PETITIONER AT VILLAGE OFFICE MARUTHAROAD
DATED 19.4.2025
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER MARUTHAROAD
DATED 12.7.2023
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE
LIE AND NATURE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
20.7.2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AS
PER RULE 4(D) OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION
OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT AND RULES
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FURNISHED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, STATUTORY AUTHORITY DATED
7.9.2024
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OBTAINED FROM
THE KSREC DATED 31.8.2024
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 6.2.2025
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD DATED
6.7.2023
