[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muhammed Rishal K vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 15 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 46778 of 2025
1
2025:KER:96521
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. 46778 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED RISHAL K
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O ALI, KANDENKADAN, VAZHENKADA, ALIPPARAMBA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT , REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER ALI, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED
KANDENKADAN, KANDENKADAN, VAZHENKADA, ALIPPARAMBA
P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679357
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAMEES P.K.
SHRI.ADITHYA VARMA S.
SMT.ERFANA PARAMBADAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679322
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, ALIPPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 679357
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ALIPPARAMBA VILLAGE, ALIPPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679357
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. 46778 of 2025
2
2025:KER:96521
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 46778 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th 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 calling for the records leading to Exhibit P3
and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the
principles of natural justice;
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to reconsider
Exhibit P2 application, afresh and pass appropriate orders
thereon in accordance with law, after properly considering the
real nature of property and all other relevant materials;
iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case;
iv) Exempt the petitioner from producing the English
Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with this writ
petition and the petitioner further undertakes that he is ready
and willing to produce English Translation of Malayalam
documents as and when required;"[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
2025:KER:96521
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
Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433], observed that the
2025:KER:96521
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.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 1st 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
2025:KER:96521
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:96521
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 46778 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.
309/I/2024 OF PERINTHALMANNA SRO
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
(NO.15/2024/18763) SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
21.02.2024
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED
30.11.2024
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.01.2024 IN W.P.(C) NO.2162 OF 2024
