[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
C. Praveen vs State Of Kerala on 10 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 33643 of 2025
1
2025:KER:95350
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. 33643 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
1 C. PRAVEEN
AGED 35 YEARS
KAIRALI, MOOLAMCODE, ANGODE, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678684
2 C.ANIRUDHAN
AGED 31 YEARS
KAIRALI, MOOLAMCODE, ANGODE, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678684
BY ADV SMT.K.P.SANTHI
RESPONDENT(S):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
688001
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER ,ALAPPZUHA, PIN - 688001
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK,
MAVELIKKARA ,ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690101
W.P.(C) No. 33643 of 2025
2
2025:KER:95350
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN,BHARANIKAVU, MAVELIKKARA,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690101
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KATTANAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA , ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 690101
BY ADV.
GP, SMT. PREETHA K.K
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. 33643 of 2025
3
2025:KER:95350
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 33643 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 and P5 as
arbitrary, illegal and unjust;
(ii) Direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider Exhibits
P2 and P2(a) affording opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners, within a time frame to be fixed by this
Honoruable Court;
(iii) Issue such other writ, direction or order as is
deemed just and necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the case"[SIC]
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders
passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the Form-5
applications submitted by the petitioners under the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules,
2008 ('Rules', for brevity). The main grievance of the
petitioners is that the authorised officer has not
considered the contentions of the petitioners.
2025:KER:95350
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused the impugned orders. I am
of the considered opinion that the authorised officer has
failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The
impugned orders were passed by the authorised officer
solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer.
There is no indication in the order 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.
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:95350
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 orders are
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 orders are to be
set aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the
following manner:
1. Exts.P4 and P5 orders are set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Exts.P2 and P2(a)
Form - 5 applications 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:95350
petitioners, if not already called for.
3. If satellite pictures are called for, the
applications 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 applications
shall be considered and disposed of
within two months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment by
the petitioners.
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:95350
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 33643 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK IN RESPECT
OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATIONS
DATED 26-1-2024 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATIONS
DATED 26-1-2024 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 THE TAX RECEIPTS DATED 17-11-2023
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KATTANAM VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P3(A) THE TAX RECEIPTS DATED 17-11-2023
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KATTANAM VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22-
10-2024 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22-
10-2024 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
