Kerala High Court
Abdu Sameer M P vs The Deputy Collector (R R) on 3 November, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 32395 of 2025
1
2025:KER:83018
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. 32395 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
ABDU SAMEER M P
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O KUNHIBAVA A V, MAHDHUM PUTHIYAKAM A K ROAD,
PONNANI,PONNANI NAGARAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679583
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
SHRI.RANJIT BABU
SMT.POOJA K.S.
RESPONDENT(S):
1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R R),
COLLECTORATE,UP HILL MALAPPURAM MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676505
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
TIRUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THRIKKANDIYOOR
ROAD,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
THAVANUR VILLAGE OFFICE, THAVANUR MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679573
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
THAVANUR KRISHI BHAVAN, THAVANUR MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679573
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. 32395 of 2025
2
2025:KER:83018
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 32395 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of November, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ
order or direction calling for the records leading to
Exhibit P6 order and quash the original of the same
ii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order
or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P5
report and quash the original of the same.
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1 st
respondent/authority concerned to issue an order
excluding the petitioner's property from the data bank
within a time frame fixed by the Hon'ble Court.
iv) Dispense with the filing of the translation of
vernacular documents.
v) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed
by the 1st respondent rejecting the Form-5 application
2025:KER:83018
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
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
based on the report of the Agricultural Officer.
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:83018
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.P6 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 Form - 5
application in accordance with the law.
The authorised officer shall either
conduct a personal inspection of the
2025:KER:83018
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
