[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vinod Kumar Nair vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 11 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:95759
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. 36708 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
VINOD KUMAR NAIR
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O SWAMINATHAN NAIR, OWNERS COURT, KASANADALLI,
BANGALORE,, PIN - 560001
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SRI.SREEJITH SREENATH
SMT.RINCY KHADER
SMT.K.V.RAJESWARI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PARAKUNNAM,
VIDYUT NAGAR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, MALAMPUZHA MALAMPUZHA P.O. PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678732
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MALAMPUZHA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678732
GP SRI K JANARDHANA SHENOY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 36708 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:95759
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 36708 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, or any other appropriate
Writs, Orders or direction, to call for the records leading to
Exhibit P-5 and to quash the same.
ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate
Writ, Orders or direction commanding the 1st respondent to
exclude the property of the petitioner from the data bank by
reconsider Exhibit P-5 application submitted by the petitioner
afresh with the assistance of the report of the Kerala State
Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, Thiruvananthapuram
as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time frame to
be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
iii. Issue a Writ to declare that, the impugned Exhibit
P-5 is per se illegal as the same is issued in violation of the
provisions of Act 28 of 2008;
iv. To dispense with the production of English
Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with the Writ
Petition in the interest of justice;
v. Render such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the
1st 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.
2025:KER:95759
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, 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.
2025:KER:95759
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:
1. Ext.P5 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 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:95759
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 36708 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. NO.212/2016
DATED 13-01-2016 OF S.R.O.PALAKKAD
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED
04-06-2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01-06-2024
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.5
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27-06-2024
Exhibit P5 . TRUE COPY OF FILE NO.3328 OF2025 DATED
01-08-2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
