[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Gopakumar B Nair vs The District Collector on 11 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:95751
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 14447 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
GOPAKUMAR B NAIR,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,RISHIKA,PERUNNA
P.O,CHANGANASSERY,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686102
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - KUMILY ROAD,KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686002
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOTTAYAM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,SECOND FLOOR,
MINI CIVIL STATION,UNION CLUB
ROAD,PUTHENANGADY,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - KUMILY ROAD,KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686002
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
CHANGANASSERY TALUK OFFICE,KACHERY ROAD, OPPOSITE
GOVERNMENT MODEL HSS, CHANGANASSERY,KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686101
WP(C) NO. 14447 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:95751
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE
OFFICE,PERUNNA,CHANGANASSERY,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686102
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
CHANGANASSERY KRISHI BHAVAN,CHANGANASSERY,KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686101
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 14447 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:95751
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 14447 OF 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"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 3rd 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 3rd respondent 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
3rd 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
2025:KER:95751
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 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:
2025:KER:95751
1. Ext.P3 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
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 11.12.2025
Draft Judgment placed 12.12.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 12.12.2025
2025:KER:95751
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 14447 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.02.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13.06.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
