[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rajesh.R vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:94514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 44077 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
RAJESH.R.,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.RAJAN, KONDAKASSERIL,CHINGOLI,
CHENGANNUR, PIN - 690532
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.P.SANTHI
SMT.PARVATHY R NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CHENGANNOOR, MAVELIKKARA, KOZHENCHERY ROAD,
CHENGANNOOR, PIN - 689121
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CHENGANNOOR,
PIN - 689121
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CHINGOLI,
CHENGANNUR, PIN - 690532
5 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, KARTHIKAPALLI, CHENGANNUR,
PIN - 689121
WP(C) NO. 44077 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:94514
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHINGOLI VILLAGE OFFICE, CHENGANNUR, PIN - 690532
GP, SMT. PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 44077 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:94514
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 44077 OF 2024
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"(i) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ,
direction or order quashing Exhibit P4 as arbitrary, illegal and
unjust;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ,
direction or order compelling the 3rd 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."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the
2nd respondent rejecting the Form-5 application submitted by him 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.
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. There is no indication in the order that the
authorised officer has directly inspected the property or called for the
2025:KER:94514
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 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 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Ext.P2 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
2025:KER:94514
4(4f) of the 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 petitioner.
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
AJ
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 05.12.2025
Draft Judgment placed 06.12.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 06.12.2025
2025:KER:94514
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 44077 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25-5-2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
11-5-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE NATURE
OF THE PROPERTY
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-6-2024 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT
