[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Suhara Jabbar vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 44675 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:96967
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 44675 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
SUHARA JABBAR
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O JABBAR T.B, THIRUNNILATH VEEDU, EDAKKUNNAM,
CHITTOOR,ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682027
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.RAFEEK
SRI.C.A.NAVAS
SMT.ANJALI SUNIL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. KERALA
STATE., PIN - 682030
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R/R)/R.D.O
WP(C) NO. 44675 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:96967
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682001
4 THE TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, KANNAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN -
682001
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
CHERANELLUR VILLAGE OFFICE, CHERANELLUR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682027
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN
- 682027
7 THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER
C BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
682035
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP, SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 44675 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:96967
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 44675 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ
order or direction, quashing Exhibit P3 order dated 15/11/2024
issued by the 3rd respondent; and allow Exhibit P2.
2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate direction
commanding the 3rd respondent to reconsider and pass fresh
orders on Exhibit P2 (Form-5 application) submitted by the
petitioner, after conducting a proper site inspection and after
considering all relevant materials including the KSRSEC report,
within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
3. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
"[SIC]
2025:KER:96967
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. 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
2025:KER:96967
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
2025:KER:96967
manner:
1. Ext.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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:96967
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].
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 16/12/25
Judgment dictated 16/12/25
Draft judgment placed 16/12/25
Final judgment uploaded 17/12/25
2025:KER:96967
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 44675 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING LIE AND NATURE OF THE
PROPERTIES
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION
DATED 10.02.2022 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTING THE
PETITIONER'S REQUEST TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY
FROM THE DATA BANK
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE KSRSEC REPORT DATED
28.10.2022
