[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ramachandran, S/O. Sarojini Amma vs The District Collector on 15 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:96679
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. 26961 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. SAROJINI AMMA,
AGED 65 YEARS
MEKKATTUTHODIYIL, PULAMANTHOLE P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679323
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTRATE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676505
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PERINTHALMANNA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
SHORNUR - PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR,
PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 679322
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR,
SHORNUR - PERINTHALMANNA ROAD,
SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 679322
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PULAMANTHOLE VILLAGE OFFICE,
PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, PULAMANTHOLE,
MALAPPURAMA, PIN - 679323
2025:KER:96679
WP(C) NO.26961 OF 2024
2
5 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
PULAMANTHOLE KRISHI BHAVAN, PULAMANTHOLE,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679323
6 THE DRIECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
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:
2025:KER:96679
WP(C) NO.26961 OF 2024
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P (C) No.26961 of 2024
-------------------------------
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.P3 order and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to
reconsider Ext.P2 application and pass orders
afresh after obtaining a report from the 6th
respondent, KSREC with regard to the nature of
the property as on 2008.
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 6 th
respondent to file a report before the 2 nd and 5th
respondents with regard to nature and lie of the
petitioner's property in 2008."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed
by the 2nd respondent rejecting the Form-5 application submitted
by him 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.
2025:KER:96679
WP(C) NO.26961 OF 2024
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
authorized 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
2025:KER:96679
WP(C) NO.26961 OF 2024
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 2nd 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
2025:KER:96679
WP(C) NO.26961 OF 2024
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
SSG
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 15.12.2025
Judgment dictated 15.12.2025
Draft Judgment Placed 16.12.2025
Final Judgment Uploaded 17.12.2025
2025:KER:96679
WP(C) NO.26961 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 26961 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
06.04.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
13.04.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
