[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Abubacker V M vs The District Collector on 16 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 43078 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:96970
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 43078 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
ABUBACKER V M
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O MOIDU, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAKODE,
MULLURKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680583
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
THRISSUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR,
CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (DM)
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
4 THE TAHSILDAR
THALAPPILLY TALUK OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR,
WP(C) NO. 43078 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:96970
PIN - 680582
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MULLURKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, MULLURKKARA, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680583
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
MULLURKKARA KRISHIBHAVAN, VARAVOOR-MULLURKARA ROAD,
MULLURKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680583
7 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GP, SMT.DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 43078 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:96970
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 43078 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"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
3rd respondent to reconsider Ext P2 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 3rd and 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
2025:KER:96970
by the 3rd 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.
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
2025:KER:96970
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:
1. Ext.P3 order is set aside.
2025:KER:96970
2. The 3rd 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 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
2025:KER:96970
by this court in Vinumon v. District Collector
[2025 (6) KLT 275].
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 16/12/25
Judgment dictated 16/12/25
Draft judgment placed 16/12/25
Final judgment uploaded 17/12/25
2025:KER:96970
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 43078 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
26.04.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
15.05.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2025
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
