[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Geetha U vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 15 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:96606
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. 41179 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
GEETHA U.,
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O. M.SURESH KUMAR, MANIKKOTH HOUSE,
CHIRAKKAL P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670011
BY ADVS.
SRI.BOBY THOMAS
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALIPARAMBA,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670141
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR, PIN - 670011
GP, SMT. PREETHA K.K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 41179 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:96606
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 41179 OF 2024
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"I. Quash Exhibit P2 issuing a writ in the nature of
certiorari; II. Direct the first respondent to delete 3.03 Ares of
land comprised in Block No.170, Re-survey No.96/233, Chirakkal
Village, Kannur Taluk & District from the data bank for the area;
III. Direct the first respondent to consider and pass
fresh orders on the application for correction of the mistake in
the data bank submitted by the petitioner adhering to the
relevant statutory provisions and government orders;
IV. Declare that 03.03 Ares of land comprised in Block
No.170, Re-survey No.96/233, Chirakkal Village, Kannur Taluk &
District is not a land to be included in the data bank for the area;
V. To dispense with the production of the English
translation of Exhibits which are in vernacular language; and
VI. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this
Hon'ble court deems 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 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
2025:KER:96606
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 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:
2025:KER:96606
1. Ext.P2 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider 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.
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
AJ
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 15.12.2025
Draft Judgment placed 15.12.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 16.12.2025
2025:KER:96606
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 41179 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX PAID RECEIPT OF THE
LAND DATED 24.07.2023
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.02.2023 ISSUED
BY 1ST RESPONDENT
