[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Nabeesumma vs The Sub Collector on 15 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 46820 of 2025
1
2025:KER:96523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 46820 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
NABEESUMMA
AGED 84 YEARS
W/O. MAMMIKUTTY, KUNDANI HOUSE, TRIPRANGODE,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676102
BY ADV SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR
OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
TRIPRANGODE VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676108
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
TRIPRANGODE KRISHI BHAVAN, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676108
BY ADV.
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 46820 of 2025
2
2025:KER:96523
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 46820 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Call for records leading up to Exhibit P2 and set aside
the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writs, orders or directions;
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writs, orders of directions directing the 1st respondent to
delete the property of the petitioner from the data bank as
the same is converted before 2008
iii) Declare that the petitioner's property is liable to be
excluded from the data bank as it is not a paddy land;
iv) Dispense with the filing of English translation of
Vernacular documents;
v) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the 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 the petitioner 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.
2025:KER:96523
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, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433], observed that
the competent authority is obliged to assess the nature, lie
2025:KER:96523
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.P2 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P1 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
2025:KER:96523
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 Vinumon v. District
Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be
passed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 15.12.2025
Judgment dictated 15.12.2025
Draft Judgment placed 15.12.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 15.12.2025
2025:KER:96523
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 46820 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT ON 22-11-2024
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22-05-
2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
REJECTING THE FORM 5 APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER
