[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Beena Sugunan vs The District Collector on 6 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
1
W.P.(C.) No.45543 of 2025
2025:KER:94746
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. 45543 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
1 BEENA SUGUNAN
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. SUGUNANV C, CHELAMBASSERY HOUSE,
VALLIVATTOM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680123
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
IRINJALAKUDA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MINI CIVIL STATION, CHEMMANDA ROAD,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680125
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
4 THE TAHSILDAR
MUKUNDAPPURAM TALUK OFFICE, MUKUNDAPURAM,
CHEMMANDA ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680125
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VALLIVATTOM VILLAGE OFFICE, BRALAM - PYNGODE ROAD,
VALLIVATTOM P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680123
2
W.P.(C.) No.45543 of 2025
2025:KER:94746
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
VELLANGALLUR KRISHIBHAVAN, VELLANGALLUR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680662
7 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C.) No.45543 of 2025
2025:KER:94746
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.45543 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of December, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records
leading to Ext P3 order and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order
or direction directing the 2nd respondent to
reconsider Ext P2 application and pass orders afresh
after obtaining a report from the 7th respondent,
KSREC with regard to the nature of the property as
on 2008.
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 7th
respondent to file a report before the 2nd and 6th
respondent with regard to nature and lie of the
petitioner's property in 2008.
iv. To dispense with the filing of translation of
vernacular documents.
v. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this
Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the
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
her under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland
2025:KER:94746
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. 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,
2025:KER:94746
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.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd 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 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
2025:KER:94746
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].
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKP
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 06.12.2025
Judgment dictated 06.12.2025
Draft Judgment placed 08.12.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 10.12.2025
2025:KER:94746
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 45543 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
18.05.2024
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
26.03.2025
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2025
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
