[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Subhadra vs State Of Kerala on 11 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 46363 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:95844
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. 46363 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
SUBHADRA
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O.KUNJU, KUMBLAKOTT HOUSE, ALATHUR PO, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678541
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.THUSHARA D.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA,
PIN - 678001
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR
(DM) REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER U/S. 2(XV)A OF THE
PADDY AND WETLAND ACT, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
4 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678541
5 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE ALATHUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678541
WP(C) NO. 46363 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:95844
6 VILLAGE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICE,ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678541
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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. 46363 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:95844
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 46363 OF 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"(i) To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate or order or direction calling for the records leading
to Exhibit P5
(ii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ order or direction directing the 3 rd Respondent
to reconsider Form.5 application (Exhibit P4) within a time frame
to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court; (iii) To dispense with filing of
the translation of vernacular documents
(iv) To grant such other and further reliefs as are just,
proper and necessary in the facts and 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 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 comply with
the statutory requirements. The impugned order was passed by the
authorised officer solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer.
2025:KER:95844
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:
1. Ext.P5 order is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Ext.P4 Form - 5 application in accordance
with the law. The authorised officer shall either conduct
2025:KER:95844
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:95844
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 46363 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 47/1/2016 OF
SRO ALATHUR DATED 5-1-2016
Exhibit P2 THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, DATED 21-11-2025
Exhibit P3 BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 20-11-2025
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM.5 APPLICATION DATED
06.03.2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY ORDER FILE NO.524/2025 DATED
21-3-2025 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR
