Kerala High Court
Riyas vs Deputy Collector (Lr) on 3 November, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 35150 of 2025
1
2025:KER:82995
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. 35150 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
RIYAS
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O T ABDULKHADER,THURAKKAL KONIKKAL, KUMBIDI,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679553
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.SUJAI SATHIAN
SMT.PREETHI. P.V.
SMT.MARY LIYA SABU
SMT.AISWARYA S. ASHOKAN
SHRI.NEERAJ KRISHNA KUMAR
SHRI.ARAVIND K.
RESPONDENT(S):
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR)
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR)
COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD-, PIN - 678013
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, ANAKKARA, KUMBIDI, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 679553
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ANAKKARA, KUMBIDI,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679553
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. 35150 of 2025
2
2025:KER:82995
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 35150 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of November, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ order or direction calling for the records leading to
Ext P5 and quash the same
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1 st
respondent to reconsider Ext P4 Form 5 application
submitted by the petitioner.
iii) Issue such other appropriate writs orders or
direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case
iv) To dispose with the production of translated
copies of vernacular documents."[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
2025:KER:82995
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],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The
2025:KER:82995
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.P5 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P4 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
2025:KER:82995
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:82995
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35150/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
(NO. KL09060302376/2025 DATED
11/04/2025)
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 18/04/2025
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
NO. 26/2025/1071809 DATED 06-05-2025
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1087/2025
DATED 12-08-2025 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
