[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Abdul Jabbar vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 44641 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:96969
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. 44641 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL JABBAR
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O T.K BAVA, THIRUNNILATH VEEDU, CHERANELLOR
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683503
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,
THIRUVANANTHPURAM, 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
WP(C) NO. 44641 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:96969
4 THE TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, KANNAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN
- 682011
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
CHERANELLUR VILLAGE OFFICE, CHERANELLUR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682027
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, PIN -
682035
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP, SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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. 44641 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:96969
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 44641 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"1. "Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate
writ order or direction, quashing Exhibit P3 order dated
20/11/2024 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]
2025:KER:96969
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order
passed 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 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
2025:KER:96969
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:96969
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:96969
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:96969
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 44641 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 20.11.2024
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
