[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
V.C.Joy vs State Of Kerala on 8 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:94826
WP(C) NO. 27181 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27181 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
V.C.JOY,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O LATE CHAKKUNNI, VETTIKANAKUDY HOUSE,
KARATTUPALLIKARA, PERUMBAVOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683542
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.P.BIJU
SMT.SAFNA P.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682020
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686661
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, KRISHI BHAVAN,
PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
683542
2025:KER:94826
WP(C) NO. 27181 OF 2024
2
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE OFFICE,PERUMBAVOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683542
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:94826
WP(C) NO. 27181 OF 2024
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.27181 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or
direction directing the 3rd respondent to allow the
petitioner to file Form No. 7 application and correct
the description of property in Resurvey No.34/1 of
Perumbavoor Village in the revenue records in the
light of Exhibit-P9 judgment.
ii. To set aside Exhibit-P2 order to the extent of
retaining 53.44 Ares of land in Resurvey No.34/1 in
the data bank.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or
direction directing the 3rd respondent to remove the
remaining portion of 53.44 Ares of land in Resurvey
No.34/1 of Perumbavoor Village from the data bank.
iv. To exempt from producing English Translation of
The documents in Vernacular Language.
v. Grant such other writ or direction if deem fit and
proper to the facts and circumstances of the case.
(SIC)
2. Petitioner is having a total of 1 Hector 59 Ares and 8
2025:KER:94826
WP(C) NO. 27181 OF 2024
sq. meters of land in Resurvey Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36
and 115 of Perumbavoor Village, Kunnathunad Taluk, Ernakulam
District, as per Ext.P1 tax receipt, is the submission. The above
properties of the petitioner are lying contiguously as a single
plot abutting Perumbavoor Municipal Road is the submission.
The property covered by Ext.P1 tax receipt was converted prior
to the coming into force of the Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Act, 2008 is the submission. Though the property of the
petitioner is converted land, it is incorrectly included and
recorded as converted land in the data bank prepared by the 4 th
respondent is the grievance of the petitioner. Therefore the
petitioner submitted Form-5 application before the 3 rd
respondent for removing the land of the petitioner in Ext.P1 tax
receipt from the data bank. After submitting Form-5 application,
on 18.07.2024, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P2 order directing
to exclude the property of the petitioner in Ext.P1 tax receipt
from the data bank except 53.44 Ares of land out of the total
area of 64.42 Ares in Resurvey No.34/1. According to the
petitioner, on perusal of Ext.P2 order, it can be seen that the 3 rd
respondent recommended excluding only 10.98 Ares out of the
2025:KER:94826
WP(C) NO. 27181 OF 2024
total area of 64.42 Ares in Resurvey No.34/1 from the data bank.
It is submitted that, as per Ext.P3 data bank, the total area of
64.42 Ares in Resurvey No.34/1 is recorded as converted land by
the 4th respondent. But the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P2 order
without any sufficient grounds or without recording any reasons.
It is submitted that the finding in Ext.P2 order to exclude 10.98
Ares from the data bank out of the total area of 64.42 Ares in
Resurvey No.34/1 is illegal and liable to be set aside is the
submission. Hence this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner is relying on the second prayer in this
writ petition by which the petitioner prays to set aside Ext.P2
order to the extent of retaining 53.44 ares of land in Resurvey
No.34/1 in the data bank.
5. 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
2025:KER:94826
WP(C) NO. 27181 OF 2024
that the authorised officer has directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules. 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.
6. 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 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.
7. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the
2025:KER:94826
WP(C) NO. 27181 OF 2024
authorised officer has to reconsider the matter about the
exclusion of 53.44 ares of land in Resurvey No.34/1 in the data
bank.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following
manner:
Ext.P2, to the extent of 53.44 ares of land in
Resurvey No.34/1 in the data bank, is set aside
and the 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the same in the light of the
observations in this judgment, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
SD/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
JV
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 08.12.2025
Judgment dictated 08.12.2025
Draft Judgment 08.12.2025
placed
Final Judgment 10.12.2025
uploaded
2025:KER:94826
WP(C) NO. 27181 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 27181 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
02.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA
BANK DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
28.11.2023 IN WP(C) NO.11093/2022 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
16.01.2017 IN WP(C) NO.40499/2016 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
23.02.2021 IN WP (C) NO.1696/2021 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.03.2024 IN WP(C) NO. 25238/2022
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 06.07.2024
ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
28.01.2022 IN WP(C) NO.26183/2021 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
21.01.2022 IN CONT CASE (C) NO.1193/2021
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
