Kerala High Court
Jaleel P.B vs State Of Kerala on 22 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:70765
WP(C) NO. 26648 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 31ST BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26648 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JALEEL P.B
AGED 58 YEARS
PARAKULAM (H), ELLUTHUMUYAL, DESHIYA KAVALA,
THIRIKKAKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682021
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SANJAY
SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON
SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR
SRI.PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH)
SRI.KIRAN NARAYANAN
SHRI.RAHUL RAJ P.
SHRI.MUHAMMED BILAL.V.A
SMT.MEERA R. MENON
SHRI.RESHVAN A.
SHRI.SAURAV SHAJI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA, PATTIMATTOM ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686661
2025:KER:70765
WP(C) NO. 26648 OF 2025 2
3 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
VENGOLA, KRISHI BHAVAN, VENGOLA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN -
683556
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ARAKKAPPADY, VENGOLA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 683556
5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
GP.SMT.DEEPA V., SC- SRI.VISHNU S. CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:70765
WP(C) NO. 26648 OF 2025 3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 26648 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 38.38
Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 139/9, 140/11,
140/15, 140/2, 140/3, 140/3-2 and 140/8 of Arakkapady
Village, Kunnathunadu 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.P4
order, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the
2025:KER:70765
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.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments
of this Court -- including the decisions in Muraleedharan
2025:KER:70765
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.P4 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
2025:KER:70765
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.P4. order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/ authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the 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
petitioner.
2025:KER:70765
(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
SCB.22.09.25.
2025:KER:70765
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26648/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED
23.10.2019, BEARING DOCUMENT NO. 3913/1/2019
OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX PAYMENT RECEIPT
DATED 20.06.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
18.07.2022
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LAND
WITH FULLY GROWN COCONUT TREES AND OTHER
VEGETATION
