[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rasheeda vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 6 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:94590
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
SATURDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
WP(C) NO. 19965 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
RASHEEDA
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O ABOOBACKER, KUNNATH HOUSE,
PUTHOOR, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE-,
PIN - 673572
BY ADVS.
SMT.RENI JAMES
SMT.C.R.REKHA
SMT.T.A.MARY RINJU
SHRI.MICHAEL.M.WILSON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
KOZHIKODE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD,
ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE -,
PIN - 673020
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
KOZHIKODE COLLECTORATE,
CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673017
3 THE TAHSILDAR
KOZHIKODE TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673020
2025:KER:94590
WP(C) NO.19965 OF 2025
2
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KUTTIKKATTOOR VILLAGE OFFICE,
VELLIPARAMBA POST, KUTTIKKATTOOR,
KOZHIKODE -, PIN - 673008
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
PERUVAYAL KRISHIBHAVAN, POOVATHUMPARAMBU
PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE ,
PIN - 673008
6 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
VIKAS BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHPURAM-,
PIN - 695033
GP - PREETHA K.
SC - VISHNU S
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:94590
WP(C) NO.19965 OF 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P (C) No.19965 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following
prayers:
"i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit.P6 and
quash the same by issuing a writ to certiorari to
other appropriate writ, order or direction;
ii) Declare that the property covered by Exts.P1
and P2 is liable to be excluded from the data
bank and direct the 2nd respondent to remove
the property from the data bank."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed
by the 2nd respondent rejecting the Form-5 application submitted
by her 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
2025:KER:94590
WP(C) NO.19965 OF 2025
comply with the statutory requirements. The impugned order was
passed by the authorised officer solely based on the report of the
Agricultural Officer and Village 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.
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
2025:KER:94590
WP(C) NO.19965 OF 2025
opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following
manner:
1. Ext.P6 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider 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 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
2025:KER:94590
WP(C) NO.19965 OF 2025
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 06.12.2025
Judgment dictated 06.12.2025
Draft Judgment Placed 06.12.2025
Final Judgment Uploaded 06.12.2025
2025:KER:94590
WP(C) NO.19965 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 19965 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED
19.02.2005
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
23.04.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED
BY THE PERUVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX RECEIPT DATED
8.10.2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT NO. 2596/2024 DATED 14.02.2025
