[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Baladandapani.V vs State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 32790 of 2025
1
2025:KER:95349
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 19TH
AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32790 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
BALADANDAPANI.V
AGED 51 YEARS
RAJARAJESWARI BHAVANAM, KAREKKAD, CHANDRANAGAR,
PALAKKADA, PIN - 678007
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.P.SANTHI
SHRI.SAM THOMAS.K
SHRI.AKHIL AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENT(S):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR ,
CIVIL STATION,KUNNATHURMEDU,,PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678001
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
5 THE TAHSILDAR,
W.P.(C) No. 32790 of 2025
2
2025:KER:95349
TALUK OFFICE,PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678001
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PALAKKAD-III VILLAGE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
BY ADV.
GP, SRI. K. JANARDHANA SHENOY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 32790 of 2025
3
2025:KER:95349
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 32790 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ,
direction or order quashing Exhibit P4 as arbitrary, illegal
and unsustainable;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ,
direction or order compelling the 2nd respondent to
reconsider Exhibit P3 application , affording opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner within a time frame to be
fixed by this Honourable Court ;
(iii) issue such other writ, direction or order as is
deemed just and necessary in the facts, features and
circumstances of the case.
iv) pleased to dispense with the translation of
document produced in vernacular language."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed
by the 2nd respondent rejecting the Form-5 application
submitted by the petitioner under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008
('Rules', for brevity). The main grievance of the
2025:KER:95349
petitioner is that the authorised officer has not
considered the contentions of the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the 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
based on the report of the Agricultural Officer.
Eventhough KSREC report is available, the same is not
properly considered by the authorised 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,
2025:KER:95349
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.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the
following manner:
1. Ext.P4 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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
2025:KER:95349
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.
4. If the authorised officer is either
dismissing or allowing the petition, a
speaking order as directed by this court
in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025
(6) KLT 275], shall be passed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 10.12.2025
Judgment dictated 10.12.2025
Draft Judgment placed 10.12.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 11.12.2025
2025:KER:95349
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 32790 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 5-
6-2025 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOZHENCHERRY
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATA BANK DATED 12-3-2012
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 20-3-2024 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23-
8-2025 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
