Kerala High Court
Sidheeque vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:69987
WP(C) NO. 25053 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. 25053 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 SIDHEEQUE
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O MOYIN HAJI, VADAKKAN HOUSE, INDIANOOR P.O,
KOTTAKKAL , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676503
2 SHARAFUDHEEN
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED, KALLIDUMBIL HOUSE, INDIANOOR P.O,
KOTTAKKAL , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676503
3 KHALEELUL RAHMAN
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED IBRAHIM, KUNNAKKADAN HOUSE, INDIANOOR
P.O, KOTTAKKAL , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676503
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAMEES P.K.
SHRI.ADITHYA VARMA S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676101
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, VETTOM , TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676105
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
2025:KER:69987
WP(C) NO. 25053 OF 2025
2
VILLAGE OFFICE, VETTOM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676102
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:69987
WP(C) NO. 25053 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2025
The petitioners are the co-owners in possession
of 14.64 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.251/3-2 in
Vettom Village, Tirur Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 sale
deed. 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 1st petitioner had submitted Ext.P3
application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
However, by Ext.P6 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the application without either
conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling
2025:KER:69987
WP(C) NO. 25053 OF 2025
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. In the statement filed by the 1 st respondent it is
contended that, the Agricultural Officer has reported that
the applied property is still a paddy land and there are no
trees in the said property. The authorised officer has
verified the satellite images of the plot in 2010, which
shows that the property is a cultivable paddy land. Based
on the report of the Agricultural officer and the satellite
pictures that Ext.P6 order has been passed. There is no
illegality in Ext.P6 order. Therefore, the application may
be dismissed.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader.
2025:KER:69987
WP(C) NO. 25053 OF 2025
4. The petitioners' 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.
5. 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.
6. A reading of Ext.P6 order substantiates that the
2025:KER:69987
WP(C) NO. 25053 OF 2025
authorised officer has not directly inspected the property
or called for the satellite pictures as envisaged under Rule
4(4f) of the Rules from the Central/State Institute of
Science and Technology, which has been specifically
observed in Ext.P8 judgment. Instead, the authorised
officer has purportedly verified the google map which is
not recognised under the statute. There is also no
independent finding regarding the nature and character of
the land as on the relevant date or whether its exclusion
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:
2025:KER:69987
WP(C) NO. 25053 OF 2025
(i) Ext.P6 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 calling for the satellite pictures as provided
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the
petitioners.
(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 petitioners.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/19/9/2025
2025:KER:69987
WP(C) NO. 25053 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25053/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 406/2017
OF TIRUR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATABANK DATED 24/03/2012
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION
(NO.7/2024/31606) SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
14/02/2024
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECIEPT (NO.
KL10043001132/2024) FOR FORM 5 APPLICATION
(NO.7/2024/31606) SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
14/02/2024
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.
20026 OF 2024 DATED 04.07.2024
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED
29.10.2024
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 20.09.2024
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.01.2024 IN W.P.(C) NO.2162 OF 2024
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) True copy of satellite images
Exhibit R1(b) True copy of the report of Agricultural
officer dated 20/09/2025
