Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mohamed Musthafa K P vs The District Collector, Malappuram
2026 Latest Caselaw 748 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 748 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 January, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Mohamed Musthafa K P vs The District Collector, Malappuram on 23 January, 2026

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
                                                           2026:KER:6027



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

        FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 3RD MAGHA, 1947

                        WP(C) NO. 34160 OF 2024

PETITIONER/S:

            MOHAMED MUSTHAFA K P.,
            AGED 61 YEARS
            S/O. POKKAR MASTER, KALLOOPARAMBAN HOUSE, KOZHIKODE
            ROAD, CHEMMAD, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM, KERALA,
            PIN - 676306.


            BY ADVS.
            SHRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR
            SMT.P.K.MINIMOLE
            SHRI.A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
            SHRI.BAPPU GALIB SALAM
            SHRI.G.MOTILAL




RESPONDENT/S:

    1       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM,
            COLLECTORATE, CONFERENCE HALL, COLLECTORATE RD,
            UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676505.

    2       SUB-COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR,
            REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE TIRUR-THRIKANDIYOOR RD,
            TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676101.

    3       DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A), MALAPPURAM,
            COLLECTORATE, CONFERENCE HALL, COLLECTORATE RD, UP
            HILL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676505.

    4       THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
            BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, THE AGRICULTURAL
                                                          2026:KER:6027
WP(C) NO. 34160 OF 2024          2



              OFFICER, TIRUR KRISHI BHAVAN, TIRUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM,
              PIN - 680581.


              SRI K JANARDHANA SHENOY, GP


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                      2026:KER:6027
WP(C) NO. 34160 OF 2024              3



                          P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                   -----------------------------------------------
                         W.P.(C) No.34160 of 2024
                   -----------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2026

                                  JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

i. Call for the records relating to Ext.P7 order of the 2nd Respondent Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur and to quash the same order by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writs, Orders or Directions.

ii. Declare that the property of the Petitioner having a total extent of 27.1 Ares, split up into 3 extents, 4.5 Ares comprised in Sy. No. 319/1-5, 3.98 Ares comprised in Sy. No. 320/2-5, and 18.98 Ares comprised in Sy No. 304/1-5 situated at Tirurangadi Village, Tirurangadi Taluk in Malappuram District is dry/garden land, having all the characterisation of Purayidam and therefore the inclusion of 18.98 Ares of the property in the data bank is liable to be excluded.

iii. Issue such other and further writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv. Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd

respondent rejecting the Form-5 application submitted by him under

the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008

('Rules', for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioner is that the

authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2026:KER:6027

learned Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused the impugned order. I am of the

considered opinion that the authorised officer has failed to comply

with the statutory requirements. The impugned order was passed by

the authorised officer solely based on the report of the Agricultural

Officer. There is no indication in the order that the authorized officer

has directly inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures

as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Eventhough, KSREC

report is available, the same is not properly considered by the

authorized officer. There is no independent finding regarding the

nature and character of the land as on the relevant date by the

authorised officer. Moreover, the authorised officer has not

considered whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially

affect the surrounding paddy fields.

5. This Court 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], observed that the competent

authority 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 2026:KER:6027

the decisive criteria to determine whether the property merits

exclusion from the data bank. The impugned order is not in

accordance with the principle laid down by this Court in the above

judgments. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the

impugned order is to be set aside.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:

1. Ext.P7 order is set aside.

2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to

reconsider Ext.P6 Form - 5 application in accordance

with the law. The authorised officer shall either conduct

a personal inspection of the property or, alternatively,

call for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule

4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner, if not

already called for.

3. 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 personally inspect the property, the

application shall be considered and disposed of within

two months from the date of production of a copy of this

judgment by the petitioner.

2026:KER:6027

4. If the Authorised Officer is either dismissing or allowing

the petition, a speaking order, as directed by this Court

in the judgment dated 05.11.2025 in Vinumon v.

District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE Sru 2026:KER:6027

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 34160 OF 2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 141/1991 DATED 16.01.1991 OF SRO TIRURANGADI Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.04.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER NO. B7-675/05 DATED 01.03.2005 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.

17670/14-15 DATED 20.06.2015 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION HAVING FILE NO. 154/2022/290106 DATED 23.03.2022 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 4647/2024 DATED 07.05.2024 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT NO. A-

172/2015/KSREC/007102/23 DATED 05.02.2024 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER HAVING FILE NO.

1101/2023 DATED 23.09.2023

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter