[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
T.B Ummer vs State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No.44687 of 2025
1
2025:KER:96662
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. 44687 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
T.B UMMER
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O T.K BAVA, THIRUNNILATH HOUSE, PALLIKAVALA,
CHERANALLOR,ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682034
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
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682001
4 THE TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, KANNAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 682011
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
CHERANELLUR VILLAGE OFFICE, CHERANELLUR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682027
W.P.(C) No.44687 of 2025
2
2025:KER:96662
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,
REPRESENTER BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 682035
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.44687 of 2025
3
2025:KER:96662
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.44687 of 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order
or direction, quashing Exhibit P3 order dated 16/11/2024
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]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order
passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting Ext.P2 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
2025:KER:96662
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
based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. Even
though KSREC report is available, the same is not
properly considered by the authorised 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,
2025:KER:96662
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(C) is allowed in the
following manner:
1. Ext.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent / authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Ext.P2 Form-5 application submitted by
the petitioner, in accordance with the law. The
authorised officer shall either conduct a personal
inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for
2025:KER:96662
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.
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
nvj
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 15.12.2025
Judgment dictated 15.12.2025
Draft Judgment placed 16.12.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 16.12.2025
2025:KER:96662
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 44687 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit p1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY, SHOWING ITS LIE
AND NATURE
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
16.11.2024 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
