[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
N.K.Sajitha vs The State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 46715 of 2025
1
2025:KER:96520
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. 46715 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
N.K.SAJITHA
AGED 45 YEARS
D/O MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT AL FAJAR, IVERKULAM,
MUNDALOOR.P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670622
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
SHRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
SMT.GANGA A.SANKAR
SMT.KRISHNAPRIYA R.
SMT.ANJU DONY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NEAR FIRE STATION,
THALASSERY, PIN - 670141
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, VENGAD
KRISHI BHAVAN, VENGAD, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
BY ADV.
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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. 46715 of 2025
2
2025:KER:96520
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 46715 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Declare that the property of the petitioners covered
by Ext P1 is liable to be removed from data Bank considering
the factual circumstances.
(ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order
quashing Exhibit P4 as illegal by calling for the records
leading to the issuance of the same.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order
directing the respondents to remove the property of the
petitioner from Data bank by re-considering the Ext P3 Form
5 application filed by the petitioners after conducting a site
inspection in the presence of the petitioner and calling for a
report from KSREC.
(iv) grant such other reliefs as this Hon`ble Court may
deem fit and proper as on the facts and circumstances of the
case.
(v) dispense with filing the translation of vernacular
document"[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
the 2nd respondent rejecting the Form-5 application
submitted by the petitioner under the Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules', for brevity).
2025:KER:96520
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. 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
2025:KER:96520
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.P4 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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.
2025:KER:96520
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 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:96520
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 46715 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAYMENT
RECEIPT DATED 27.06.2023
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER
FORM 5 TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY FROM DATA
BANK ON 13.10.2021
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 20.09.2022
