Kerala High Court
Abbas Ali Mohammed vs The Deputy Collector (Lr) on 19 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:69996
WP(C) NO. 24352 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 28TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 24352 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ABBAS ALI MOHAMMED
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O ALI MUHAMMED PULAVATH HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683542
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.S.SHAMLA
SMT.SANGEERTHANA M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR)
CIVIL STATION, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683542
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VENGOLA VILLAGE OFFICE, PUTHENKURISU ROAD,
PERUMBAVOOR, KERALA, PIN - 683556
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT.DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:69996
WP(C) NO. 24352 OF 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
25.20 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 357/13 and
357/2-2 in Vengola Village, Kunnathunad Taluk, covered
under Ext.P2 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.P3 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 directly inspecting the property.
Even though the Agricultural officer had called Ext.P6
2025:KER:69996
WP(C) NO. 24352 OF 2025
report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and
Environmental Centre (KSREC), the same was not
considered by the authorised officer. 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
2025:KER:69996
WP(C) NO. 24352 OF 2025
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.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 personally inspected the property
or considered 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.
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
2025:KER:69996
WP(C) NO. 24352 OF 2025
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.P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P3 application, in accordance with the
law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the
property or considering Ext.P6 KSREC report.
(iii) The above exercise shall be carried out within
two months from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment by the petitioner.
2025:KER:69996
WP(C) NO. 24352 OF 2025
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/19/9/2025
2025:KER:69996
WP(C) NO. 24352 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24352/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
3404/I/2022 DATED 08/08/2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE
YEAR 2022-2023 DATED 29/09/2022 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOR OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER IN FORM 5 BEARING
APPLICATION NO. 1/2023/1403303 DATED
04/01/2023
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SENT BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF
KSREC TAKEN UNDER RTI & TRUE COPY OF THE
DD
Exhibit P4 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE DD
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 03/01/2025
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED
13/05/2025
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF 3RD RESPONDENT
TAKEN UNDER RTI ACT
