Kerala High Court
Sudhish Chacko vs Sub Collector, Thrissur on 3 November, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:82891
WP(C) NO. 24181 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 24181 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
SUDHISH CHACKO
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.CHACKO, MONDY HOUSE, CHIRANELLUR, S.N.PARK,
POOTHOLE.P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680004
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
SHRI.BABU V.P.
SHRI.SHAHBAS AMAN C.M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SUB COLLECTOR, THRISSUR
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680003
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, ADAT GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, ADAT, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
CHITTILAPPILLY VILLAGE OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN -
680551
2025:KER:82891
WP(C) NO. 24181 OF 2025
2
5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE (KSREC)
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SMT.PREETHA K.K. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:82891
WP(C) NO. 24181 OF 2025
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.24181 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P3 order
issued by the 1st respondent, after calling for the
records leading to its issuance;
ii. petitioner also prays that this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to dispense with production of
translation of the documents produced in
vernacular language.
iii. issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and 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 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:82891
WP(C) NO. 24181 OF 2025
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
2025:KER:82891
WP(C) NO. 24181 OF 2025
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.
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
2025:KER:82891
WP(C) NO. 24181 OF 2025
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.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
JV
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 03.11.2025
Judgment dictated 03.11.2025
Draft Judgment placed 04.11.2025
Final Judgment 05.11.2025
uploaded
2025:KER:82891
WP(C) NO. 24181 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24181/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
17/5/2025 ISSUED FROM CHITTILAPPILLY
VILLAGE OFFICE
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK
PUBLISHED VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED
18/1/2021 IN KERALA GAZETTE
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.1131/2023 DATED
23/4/2023 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
