Kerala High Court
Hameed Abdulla vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 22 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 23537 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:70540
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. 23537 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
HAMEED ABDULLA
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O T.V. ABDULLA THALIYAPADATH, PONJANAM, KATTUR P.O,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680702
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.S.SHAMLA
SMT.SANGEERTHANA M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
FORTKOCHI, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KUMBALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682506
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
AGRICULTURE OFFICE, KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682506
SR.GP.SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 23537 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:70540
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 23537 OF 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 15
Ares and 38 square meters of land comprised in Re-survey
Nos.277/3-6 and 277/3-8 of Kumbalam Village,
Kanayannur 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.P4 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 either conducting a personal
WP(C) NO. 23537 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:70540
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 Senior Government Pleader.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the
satellite pictures from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and
Environment Centre (KSREC) has been received by the
Agricultural Officer.
4. 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
WP(C) NO. 23537 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:70540
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.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
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
WP(C) NO. 23537 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:70540
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.P5 order is quashed.
(ii) The 2nd respondent/ authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 application, in accordance
with the law, by either conducting a personal inspection
of the property or referring to the KSREC report that is
said to have been received by the 4 th respondent. The
WP(C) NO. 23537 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:70540
above exercise shall be carried out within 90 days 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.
WP(C) NO. 23537 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:70540
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23537/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1064/2019
DATED 29/04/2019
Exhibit P 1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1118/2019
DATED 08/05/2019
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE
YEAR 2024-2025 DATED 30/04/2024 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOR OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF PUBLISHED DATA
BANK BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER IN FORM 5 BEARING
APPLICATION NO. 8/2024/945687 DATED
28/05/2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEARING FILE NO.
2002/2025 DATED 02/06/2025
