[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
C.R.Anitha vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 3 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 21764 of 2025
1
2025:KER:93579
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21764 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
C.R.ANITHA
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O MANIKANDAN, PRA4, PATTATH HOUSE,
CHALIKKAVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SRI.P.S.SIDHARTHAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VADAKKEKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, VADAKKEKARA, N-
PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683522
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, VADAKKEKKARA, N.PARAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683522
BY ADV. GP, SRI. K. JANARDHANA SHENOY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 21764 of 2025
2
2025:KER:93579
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 21764 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of December, 2025.
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"i. Call for records leading to Ext.P3 and issue a writ in
the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P3.
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding
the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 Form 5 application
and grant sanction and allow the same and remove
petitioner's land from data bank, within such time as may be
fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
iii. issue such other orders, writs or directions as are
deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.
iv. award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.
v. dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular
documents produced as Exhibits in the writ petition."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
the 1st 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 petitioner is that the authorised officer has
not considered the contentions of the petitioner.
2025:KER:93579
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 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, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433], observed that the
2025:KER:93579
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. The order bearing No.356/2024 dated
08.10.2024 is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 Form - 5 application
submitted by the petitioner 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.
2025:KER:93579
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 03.12.2025
Judgment dictated 03.12.2025
Draft Judgment placed 04.12.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 05.11.2025
2025:KER:93579
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 21764 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR
THE YEAR 2023-2024 DATED 08.04.2023
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.06.2023
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 14.02.2025
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN
2025 KHC ONLINE 1666 (RASHEED C V.
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR)
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN
2023 (6) KHC 83 (APARNA SASI MENON V.
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA)
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN
2025 (1) KHC 647 (KRISHNANKUTTY MENON V.
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE)
