[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Preeni vs The District Collector on 15 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:96938
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. 10808 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PREENI,
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O. RAISON RAPHEL, UKEN HOUSE,KOTTAKUNNU,SULTHAN
BATHERY, WAYANAD, PIN - 673592
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, NORTH KALPETTA P.O.,WAYANAD,
PIN - 673122
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MANANTHAVADY, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MALAYORA HIGHWAY, MANANTHAVADY,WAYANNAD,
PIN - 670645
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
COLLECTORATE, NORTH KALPETTA P.O.,WAYANAD,
PIN - 673122
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
SULTAN BATHERY TALUK OFFICE, SULTAN BATHERY,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673592
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
NENMENI VILLAGE OFFICE,MADAKKARA, NENMENI,
WAYANAD,
PIN - 673592
WP(C) NO. 10808 OF 2025
2025:KER:96938
2
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
NENMENI KRISHIBHAVAN,NENMENI, WAYANAD, PIN -
673595
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695033
GP, SRI. K. JANARDHANA SHENOY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10808 OF 2025
2025:KER:96938
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 10808 OF 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following
prayers:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the
records leading to Ext P2 order and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction directing the 2nd respondent or the
officer authorized under section 2(XVA) of the Act to
reconsider Form 5 application and pass orders afresh
after obtaining a report from the 7th respondent, KSREC
with regard to the nature of the property as on 2008.
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the
7th respondent to file a report before the 6th
respondent with regard to nature and lie of the
petitioner's property in 2008.
iv. To dispense with the filing of translation of
vernacular documents.
v. To issue such other writ, order or direction
as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed
by the 2nd 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.
WP(C) NO. 10808 OF 2025
2025:KER:96938
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
competent authority is obliged to assess the nature, lie and
character of the land and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on
WP(C) NO. 10808 OF 2025
2025:KER:96938
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.P2 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd 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
WP(C) NO. 10808 OF 2025
2025:KER:96938
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
SSG
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 15.12.2025
Draft Judgment placed 16.12.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 17.12.2025
WP(C) NO. 10808 OF 2025
2025:KER:96938
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 10808 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
13.01.2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
