Kerala High Court
P.P.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 3 November, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 1603 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:83068
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. 1603 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 P.P.CHANDRAN,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.VELUKUTTY,PANTHALATHIPARAMBIL, PANAMANNA,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679501
2 PRASANNA,
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O.P.P.CHANDRAN,PANTHALATHIPARAMBIL, PANAMANNA,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679501
BY ADV SHRI.V.B.RAMANUNNI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695031
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN -
67801
3 SUB COLLECTOR,
OTTAPALAM, COURT RD, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN -
679101
WP(C) NO. 1603 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:83068
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
OTTAPALAM, THOTTAKKARA, OTTAPALAM DISTRICT, PIN -
679102
5 THE TAHSILDAR,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, OTTAPALAM,PALAKKAD, PIN - 679101
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 1603 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:83068
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 1603 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i) To issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate Writ order
or direction calling for records leading to Ext.P4 and quash the
same;
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate Writ order
or direction directing the 3rd respondent, to allow Ext.P2(a)
application for deletion of the property from the Data Bank and
to grant such other reliefs;
iii) To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular
documents; iv) To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court
deem fit to grant in the interest of justice "[SIC]
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P5 order
passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting Form - 5 application
submitted by them under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules', for brevity). The main
2025:KER:83068
grievance of the petitioners is that the authorised officer has
not considered the contentions of the petitioners.
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners 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 the statutory requirements. The impugned order is
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 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
2025:KER:83068
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.P4 order is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2(a) Form - 5 application in
accordance with law. The authorised officer
shall either conduct a personal inspection of the
property or, alternatively, call for the satellite
2025:KER:83068
pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the
Rules, at the cost of the petitioners, 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 petitioners.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 03/11/25
Judgment dictated 03/11/25
Draft judgment placed 04/11/25
Final judgment uploaded 04/11/25
2025:KER:83068
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1603/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.390/2005 OF
SRO, OTTAPALAM DATE 27/1/2005
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 23-11-2023
Exhibit P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 21-19-2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT OF THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 13-12-2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3 RD
RESPONDENT DATED 2-10-2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LIE
AND NATURE OF THE LAND
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3-1-2023 OF
THE 3 RD RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE ADJACENT
LAND OWNER
