Ibrahim v State of Kerala & Ors; Sainul Abideen v State of Kerala & Ors

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2021-08-25
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P6 orders are set aside. The Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to reconsider the petitioners’ applications, taking into account KSREC’s findings and the judicial principles from Salim C.K. and Joy K.K., and issue fresh orders within two months.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; Ext.P6 set aside; RDO to reconsider with fresh orders to be issued within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ibrahim, aged 48, s/o Abdu Rahiman; Athimannil House, Pappinippara, Pappinippara P.O., Malappuram District, PIN-676122.
Sainul Abideen, aged 46, s/o Abdu Rahiman Haji; Meecheri House, Pappinippara, Papinippara P.O., Malappuram District, PIN-676122.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue; Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District; Agricultural Officer, Anakkayam Grama Panchayath; Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC).

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Shibili Naha
• Smt. A. Lowsy

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Vipin Narayan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 764 of 2021 and 834 of 2021) by contiguously located landowners in Anakkayam Village, Malappuram, challenge Ext.P6, the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order rejecting their request to correct the Data Bank contents by excluding their properties. The KSREC report had described the plots as bordered by a road to the south and observed an evolving land-use pattern: fallow land with partial mixed vegetation/plantation in 2006, similar patterns in 2011, and exposed soil in 2016. The petitioners argued that the KSREC data, combined with surrounding development and the plot’s actual land use, shows the land is not paddy land, and Ext.P6 cannot be sustained. The State contends the impugned orders rely on KSREC and Agricultural Officer reports and should be upheld. The Court notes that the KSREC findings, together with the Agricultural Officer report, require careful reconsideration and cites Salim C.K. and Joy K.K. to emphasize that fallow or waterlogged land during the rainy season does not automatically mark it as wet land. Consequently, Ext.P6 is set aside and the RDO is directed to reassess the Applications in light of KSREC’s conclusions and the cited judgments, with fresh orders to be issued within two months."

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Not every land that is fallow or waterlogged in the rainy season equates to wet land; land-use data and established precedents must guide final classification.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend Ext.P6 is untenable as KSREC observations show the land is bordered by a road and not to be paddy land; the data from 2006-2016 indicates land-use patterns inconsistent with a wetland designation; Ext.P6 failed to consider crucial KSREC observations and surrounding development; they request exclusion from the Data Bank and remand for reconsideration.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader submits that Ext.P6 is based on KSREC and Agricultural Officer reports; the decision is legally sound and should not be interfered with; writ petitions deserve dismissal.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Salim C.K. and another v. State of Kerala & Ors.	2017 (1) KHC 394	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that land lying fallow and waterlogged during the rainy season does not automatically render it wet land.
Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam & others	2021 (1) KHC 540	Positive	Cited for the same principle of evaluating land status with evidence beyond seasonal fallowing; used to reinforce the need for re-evaluation.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021/3RD BHADRA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 764 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **IBRAHIM, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ABDU RAHIMAN, ATHIMANNIL HOUSE, PAPPINIPPARA, PAPPINIPPARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 122.** **BY ADVS. K.SHIBILI NAHA SMT.A.LOWSY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.** - **3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ANAKKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ANAKKAYAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 509.** - **4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE (KSREC) NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.08.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).834/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C)No.764 & 834 of 2021 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021/3RD BHADRA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 834 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **SAINUL ABIDEEN, AGED 46, S/O ABDU RAHIMAN HAJI, MEECHERI HOUSE, PAPPINIPPARA, PAPINIPPARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST,PIN-676 122.** **BY ADVS. K.SHIBILI NAHA SMT.A.LOWSY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.** - **3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ANAKKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,ANAKKAYAM.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676509.** - **4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE(KSREC), NEAR LIGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** ## **GOVT.PLEADER SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.08.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).764/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C)No.764 & 834 of 2021 3 ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 25[th] day of August, 2021 [WP(C)Nos.764 & 834 of 2021] The two writ petitioners, whose property are lying contiguously in Anakkayam Village of Malappuram District, are before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer rejecting the request of the petitioners for correcting the contents of Data Bank by excluding the property of the petitioners therefrom. 2. A perusal of Ext.P6 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer would disclose that the applications submitted by the petitioners have been rejected relying on the KSREC report and the report of the Agricultural Officer. In Ext.P6, the Revenue Divisional Officer has stated that as per the KSREC report, the land in 4 WP(C)No.764 & 834 of 2021 question is described as paddy land. It is for that reason, the applications are rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 3. The petitioners would point out that the report of the KSREC conclude that the plot is bordered by a road on southern side, was observed under fallow land with partial mixed vegetation/plantation on eastern side in the data of year 2006 and further that the same land use pattern was continued in the data of year 2011. From the data of year 2016, exposed soil was also observed on western side. It is the contention of the petitioners that these material and crucial observations and conclusions of the KSREC were not taken into consideration by the Revenue Divisional Officer while passing the orders impugned. The petitioners would further point out that the area is well developed and there are a large number of buildings around. In the circumstances, Ext.P6 cannot stand the scrutiny of law, WP(C)No.764 & 834 of 2021 5 contends the petitioners. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the impugned orders have been passed based on the reports of the Agricultural Officer and also the report on the land use change prepared by the KSREC based on scientific data. Therefore this Court need not interfere in the matter. The writ petitions are only to be dismissed, contended the learned Government Pleader. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 6. A perusal of Ext.P5 report of the KSREC would show that the KSREC observed that the plots of the petitioners are bordered by a road on southern side and was observed under fallow land with partial mixed vegetation/plantation on eastern side in the data of year 2006. The report of the KSREC proceed to conclude that the same land use pattern was continued in the data of 6 WP(C)No.764 & 834 of 2021 year 2011. From the data of year 2016, exposed soil was observed on western side in the area. If that be so, the petitioner has a reason to urge that the land is not a paddy land. 7. This Court has held in the judgment in **Salim C.K. and another v. State of Kerala & Ors.** [2017 (1) KHC 394] and **Joy K.K. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam & others** [2021 (1) KHC 540] that merely because a land is lying fallow and waterlogged during rainy season, it cannot be concluded that such land is wet land. In such circumstances and in view of the facts of the case, Ext.P6 orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer are set aside and the Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioners based on the aforesaid findings of the KSREC as also judgment of this Court in [2017 (1) KHC 394] and [2021 (1) 7 WP(C)No.764 & 834 of 2021 KHC 540]. Fresh orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months. **Sd/N. NAGARESH JUDGE** ncd/25.08.2021 WP(C)No.764 & 834 of 2021 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 764/2021** |**PETITIONER'S **|**EXHIBITS**| |---|---| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION**| ||**CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE**| ||**OFFICER CONCERNED DATED 22.01.2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT**| ||**EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX DATED**| ||**22.12.2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION MAP**| ||**PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**ANAKKAYAM.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KSREC**| ||**DATED 06.12.2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE**| ||**2ND**<br>**RESPONDENT**<br>**(FILE**| ||**NO.RDOPTM/2052/2020-S3)**<br>**DATED**| ||**06.10.2020.**| WP(C)No.764 & 834 of 2021 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 834/2021** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER CONCERNED.DATED 22/1/2019.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX DATED 22.12.2020.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION MAP PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ANAKKAYAM.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KSREC DATED 6.12.2019 . EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT (FILE NO.RDOPTM/2056/ 2020-S3)DATED 6.10.2020.**