Kerala High Court
Lali R.S vs State Of Kerala on 23 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:79147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 38430 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
LALI R.S
AGED 50 YEARS
D/O SUKUMARAN NAIR SURAFILA, 1, VENKAVILA, PAZHAKUTTY,
NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695541
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.S.ARAVIND
SHRI.SANKARANARAYANAN.P
SHRI.TINU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER(SUB COLLECTOR),
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE PAZHAVADI, NEDUMANGADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695561
3 AGRICULTURE OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN ANAD, ANAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANAGDU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695561
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN,
NEAR THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:79147
WP(C) NO.38430 OF 2025
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P (C) No.38430 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following
prayers:
" i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other
writ order or direction calling for the records
leading to Exhibit.P4 order and quash same;
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2nd
respondent to reconsider the Ext.P3 Form 5
application with respect to the property
having an extent of 16.19 are in survey
No.441/1-1 as per the mandate of the Kerala
Conservation of the Paddy and Wetland
Act,2008 and Rules thereunder and also by
obtaining the report from the 4th respondent,
in the interest of justice.
iii) to dispense with the filing of the English
translation of documents in vernacular
language;
iv) to 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 2nd respondent rejecting the Form-5 application submitted
under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules,
2025:KER:79147
WP(C) NO.38430 OF 2025
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 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 Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub
2025:KER:79147
WP(C) NO.38430 OF 2025
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 2nd 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
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
2025:KER:79147
WP(C) NO.38430 OF 2025
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
SSG
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 23.10.2025
Judgment dictated 23.10.2025
Draft Judgment Placed 24.10.2025
Final Judgment Uploaded 25.10.2025
2025:KER:79147
WP(C) NO.38430 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38430/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
NO.2947/2013 DATED 05/06/2013
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13-5-2022
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
12/10/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT IN FILE NO.1145/2025 DATED
23/06/2025
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF FEE PAID FOR
OBTAINING KSREC REPORT FROM THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT
IN FORM 6 APPLICATION BEARING FILE
NO.1364/2025 DATED 31/07/2025
Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
BUILDING
