Kerala High Court
Ummer vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 23 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:70952
WP(C) NO. 5535 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 1ST ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 5535 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
UMMER,
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O SAIDALI, KODUVAYAKKAL HOUSE,MULLIAKURSSI,
PATTIKKAD P.O, PERINTHALMANNA VIA, KEEZHATTUR,
MALAPPURAM DT., PIN - 679325
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR
SMT.AISWARYA RAMESAN
SMT.REMYA VARMA N.K
SMT.VARNIBHA.T
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PERINTHALMANNA PO, MALAPPURAM DT., PIN - 679322
2 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE (KSREC), VIKASBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DT., PIN - 695033
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KEEZHATTOOR KRISHI BHAVAN, KEEZHATTOOR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, POONTHAVANAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DT., PIN
- 679325
2025:KER:70952
WP(C) NO. 5535 OF 2025
2
SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 23.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:70952
WP(C) NO. 5535 OF 2025
3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 5535 of 2025
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
13.15 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.5/9-7 in
Block No.5 in Keezhatoor Village in Perinthalmanna
Taluk, covered under Ext.P1 possession certificate.
The property is a converted land and is unsuitable for
paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have
erroneously classified the property as 'wetland' 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.P2
application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules.
2025:KER:70952
WP(C) NO. 5535 OF 2025
However, by Ext.P3 order, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the 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
2025:KER:70952
WP(C) NO. 5535 OF 2025
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 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.P3 order reveals that the
authorised officer has failed to comply with the
statutory requirements. There is no indication in the
2025:KER:70952
WP(C) NO. 5535 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:70952
WP(C) NO. 5535 OF 2025
under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow
the writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii) The authorised officer is directed to reconsider
the Form 5, 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.
(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
2025:KER:70952
WP(C) NO. 5535 OF 2025
production of a copy of this judgment by the
petitioner.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
dkr
2025:KER:70952
WP(C) NO. 5535 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5535/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 10.12.2024.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 3.10.2023.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2024
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT .
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION, DATED
11.12.2024, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.
KL029391217202425M DATED 16/12/2024.
