Kerala High Court
Geethalekshmy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 3 November, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:83377
WP(C) NO. 40899 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. 40899 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
GEETHALEKSHMY
AGED 64 YEARS
D/O M.K KRISHNAKURUP, GEETHASADANAM, EDAMALY
PARAKKARA P.O, THATTAYIL, KADAMPANADU,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691525
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN
SMT.BLESSY MARY SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 691523
2 VILLAGE OFFICER
PANTHALAM THEKKEKRA VILLAGE OFFICE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691525
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, PANTHALAM THEKKEKARA
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 691525
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY ADV SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR 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:83377
WP(C) NO. 40899 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.40899 of 2025
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"i) a) call for the records leading to Exhibit P5
and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or
other appropriate writ, order or direction;
b) Declare that the property covered by Ext. P1
is not paddy lands as defined under section 2(XII) of the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act and is
liable to be excluded from the data bank and direct the 1
st respondent to remove the property from data bank;
c) to direct the 1st respondent to reconsider
Form 5 application after considering all the relevant
materials and after obtaining KSREC report. " [SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order
passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the Form-5
application submitted by her under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008
('Rules', for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioner
2025:KER:83377
WP(C) NO. 40899 OF 2025
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. 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:83377
WP(C) NO. 40899 OF 2025
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 4(4f) of the
Rules, at the cost of the petitioner, if not already
2025:KER:83377
WP(C) NO. 40899 OF 2025
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
Mn
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:83377
WP(C) NO. 40899 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40899/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.10.2025
Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATA BANK
Exhibit -P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07.03.1988
Exhibit -P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM
NO. 5 DATED 04.05.2022
Exhibit -P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BEARING NO. 336/2024 DATED
26.10.2024
Exhibit -P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING
THE STATUS OF THE LAND
