[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sajith vs Sub Collector/ Revenue Divisional ... on 3 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:93703
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. 15678 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
1 SAJITH,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. GANGADHARAN, THAZHATHE PURAKKAL HOUSE, VARODE
POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
679102
2 SAJEESH,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.GANGADHARAN, THAZHATHE PURAKKAL HOUSE, VARODE
POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679102
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SREEHARI
SHRI.HAMZA A.V.
SHRI.VIGNESH S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SUB COLLECTOR/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OTTAPALAM, OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR /REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM POST, OTTAPALAM
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF
PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT,2008), OTTAPALAM
MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR-
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, OTTAPALAM,
OTTAPALAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD
2025:KER:93703
WP(C) NO.15678 OF 2023
2
DISTRICT, PIN - 679101
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, OTTAPALAM, OTTAPALAM POST,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
OTTAPALAM I VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM, OTTAPALAM POST,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101
5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE,
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE
CAMPUS, PMG JUNCTION POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
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:
2025:KER:93703
WP(C) NO.15678 OF 2023
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P (C) No.15678 of 2023
-------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following
prayers:
" (i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ,
order or direction, calling for the records leading to
the passing of order Exhibit.P7 by the 1st respondent
and to quash the same.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate
writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to
reconsider and pass fresh orders on Exhibit.P4
application submitted by the petitioners in Form No.5
before the 1st respondent under the provisions of the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land
Rules after obtaining a fresh independent Reports
from the 2nd and 3rd respondents and thereafter
verifying the same by physical inspection and with
the satellite images of the same obtained from 5th
respondent, within a reasonable time frame as fixed
by this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense
with the filing of English Translation of the vernacular
typed and vernacular documents filed in this Writ
Petition (civil) on such terms and conditions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
(iv) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case."
[SIC]
2025:KER:93703
WP(C) NO.15678 OF 2023
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order
passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the Form-5 application
submitted 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.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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
authorized 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.
2025:KER:93703
WP(C) NO.15678 OF 2023
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
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.P7 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P4 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
2025:KER:93703
WP(C) NO.15678 OF 2023
Rules, at the cost of the 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 petitioners.
4. If the Authorised Officer is either dismissing or
allowing the petition, a speaking order, as
directed by this Court in the judgment dated
05.11.2025 in Vinumon v. District Collector
[2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SSG
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 03.12.2025
Judgment dictated 03.12.2025
Draft Judgment Placed 04.12.2025
Final Judgment Uploaded 05.12.2025
2025:KER:93703
WP(C) NO.15678 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 15678 OF 2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
24/01/2023 ISSUED FROM THE OTTAPALAM I
VILLAGE OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE PERIOD 2022-2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 02/05/2023 WITH NO.77623424 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONERS
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
LAND IDENTIFICATION DETAIL PUBLISHED WITH
RESPECT TO THE DATA BANK OF PADDY LAND
AND WET LANDS OF OTTAPALAM MUNICIPALITY
PUBLISHED AS PER THE KERALA CONSERVATION
OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES, 2008
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONERS IN FORM NO.5 OF THE
KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET
LAND RULES,2008 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
WITH APPLICATION NO. 11/2022/14713 DATED
28/01/2022
Exhibit5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
MINUTES AND DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT IN THE MEETING HELD ON
06/06/2022
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ON LANDUSE CHANGE
WITH NO.A-172/2015/KSREC/003785/21 ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 18/03/2023 WITH FILE NO.
