Kerala High Court
Purushothaman. K vs The Deputy Collector (Rr) Kozhikode on 3 November, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 32172 of 2025
1
2025:KER:83016
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. 32172 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
PURUSHOTHAMAN. K
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O SREEMATHI AMMA SREEKRISHNA THANCHERY
PARAMB, KARUVASSERRY KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673010
BY ADVS.
SHRI. SUNILKUMAR M.
SHRI.ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH
RESPONDENT(S):
1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR) KOZHIKODE
KOZHIKODE COLLECTORATE CIVIL STATION P.O
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KOZHIKODE KRISHIBHAVAN PUTHIYARA KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673004
BY ADV. GP, SRI. JIBU T.S,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 32172 of 2025
2
2025:KER:83016
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 32172 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of November, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"I. to call for the records leading upto Exhibit P3
rejection order on Form 5 application submitted by
petitioners and quash Exhibit P3 by issuing a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction.
II. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate order, writ or direction directing the 1 st
respondent to pass orders allowing Form 5 application
submitted by the petitioners and making necessary
corrections in the revenue records after removing the
properties of the petitioners from the data bank
III. to pass such other writ order or direction that
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
2025:KER:83016
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 the
property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy
fields.
5. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
2025:KER:83016
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.
2. The 1st 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
2025:KER:83016
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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 03.11.2025
Judgment dictated 03.11.2025
Draft Judgment placed 04.11.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 05.11.2025
2025:KER:83016
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32172/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED DATED
27.08.1993
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
23.04.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
03.10.2023 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
10.11.2022 BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
