[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Abubacker Siddique vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 12 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:96335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 24983 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
ABUBACKER SIDDIQUE
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. ABDULLA, VANIYERI HOUSE,
KARUVATTOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673611
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAFEEK. V.K.
SMT.O.A.NURIYA
SRI.SHAHIM BIN AZIZ
SHRI.MOHAMMED SHAFI.K
SMT.LYDIA ELIZABETH KOVOOR
SMT.NISHNA P.T.
SMT.MUFEEDHA P.
SHRI.ABDUL RAHOOF P.M.
SMT.ANNLIYA FLEMIN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
ERANJIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
KAKKODI,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673611
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KAKKODI VILLAGE OFFICE, KIZHAKKUMURI DESOM, KAKKODI,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673611
GP, SMT. PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:96335
WP(C) NO.24983 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P (C) No.24983 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following
prayers:
" I. Call for the records leading to the issuance of
Exhibit.P10 and quash the same by issuance of a
writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction;
II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st
respondent to allow the petitioner's Form 5
application under Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 in respect of 13.76
Ares of land within a time frame fixed by this
Hon'ble Court."
[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:96335
WP(C) NO.24983 OF 2025
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. Eventhough, KSREC report is available, the
same is not properly considered by the authorized officer. 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
2025:KER:96335
WP(C) NO.24983 OF 2025
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.P10 order is set aside.
2. The 1st 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.
2025:KER:96335
WP(C) NO.24983 OF 2025
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
SSG
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 12.12.2025
Judgment dictated 12.12.2025
Draft Judgment Placed 15.12.2025
Final Judgment Uploaded 16.12.2025
2025:KER:96335
WP(C) NO.24983 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 24983 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.
2109/2002 OF SRO, KAKKODI DATED
17.07.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 18.10.2022
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATA BANK
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REJECTION ORDER
DATED 22.11.2022
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO. 2778/2023 DATED 27.03.2023
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED
22.06.2023
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO. 26333/2023 DATED 21.06.2024
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED
21.12.2024
