Kerala High Court
Abdurahmankutty vs State Of Kerala on 27 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 24402 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:80421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 24402 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
ABDURAHMANKUTTY
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. MAMADKUTTY, VELLAPPALANKANDY, NADUVANNUR,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673614
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.P.SUDHEER
SMT.ARUNDHATI NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
VATAKARA, PUTHIYAPPU, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT,, PIN - 673101
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
NADUVANNUR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE
WP(C) NO. 24402 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:80421
DISTRICT, PIN - 673614
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 24402 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:80421
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 24402 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of October, 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 issuing a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction;
(ii) declare that the property covered by Exhibit P1 is
liable to be excluded from the data bank and direct the 3rd
respondent to remove the same from the databank.
(iii) direct the 3rd respondent to reconsider the
application of the petitioner in Form No. 5 in the light of
the dictum laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the decision
reported in 2021 (1) KHC 540 (Joy K.K. Vs. RDO), 2023 (2)
KHC 359 (Niyas Vs. District Collector) and 2023 (2) KHC
605 (Sudheesh Vs. RDO);
(iv) dispense with filing of the translation of
vernacular documents;
(v) issue any other appropriate writ, direction or
order which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the
circumstances of the case. "[SIC]
2025:KER:80421
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order
passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting Form - 5 application
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 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 the statutory requirements. The impugned
order is 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
2025:KER:80421
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 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
2025:KER:80421
following manner:
1. Ext.P2 order is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider 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 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
2025:KER:80421
copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 27/10/25
Judgment dictated 27/10/25
Draft judgment placed 27/10/25
Final judgment uploaded 28/10/25
2025:KER:80421
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24402/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P 1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 30.11.1979
REGISTERED AS DOC. NO. 2764/1979 OF
NADUVANNUR SRO EXECUTED BY PATHUMMA IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P 2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 966/2023 DATED
27.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
