Kerala High Court
Raseena C vs The Sub Collector on 3 November, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 29721 of 2025
1
2025:KER:83012
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. 29721 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
RASEENA C.
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 56 YEARS, KONHANGAL HOUSE,
P.O. PARAPPANPOYIL, THAMARASSERY TALUK,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673573
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
SMT.K.BINCYMOL
RESPONDENT(S):
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR
KOZHIKODE P.O. CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE THAMARASSERY,SAI CENTRE
ROAD KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673573
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
RAROTH VILLAGE OFFICE KARADI THAMARASSERY P.O
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673573
BY ADV. 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:
W.P.(C) No. 29721 of 2025
2
2025:KER:83012
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 29721 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of November, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P2 and
quash the same by a Writ of Certiorari.
ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, order
or direction commanding the respondents to remove the
property of the petitioner from the Data Bank as sought
for by her.
iii) To dispense with the translation of documents
produced in vernacular.
iv) Such other writ, order or direction as is deemed
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 her 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
2025:KER:83012
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
based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. It is true
that, in the impugned order it is stated that the officer
inspected the property. There is nothing in the impugned
order showing the details of the inspection and the
findings in the inspection. Eventhough 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],
2025:KER:83012
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.P2 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form - 5
application submitted by the petitioner in
accordance with the law. The authorised
officer shall either conduct a personal
2025:KER:83012
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 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:83012
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29721/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
FROM THE RAROTH VILLAGE DATED
29.03.2021
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.01.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONER'S LAND WHICH SHOWS THE
NATURE OF THE LAND
