Kerala High Court
Moidheenkutty vs State Of Kerala on 27 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 28633 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:80765
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. 28633 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
MOIDHEENKUTTY
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O HYDROS URATHODIYIL THRITHALA PALAKKAD, PIN -
678007
BY ADVS.
SMT.SWETHA R.
SHRI.T.K.SANDEEP
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, STATUE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN
- 695001
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR) RDO
MINI CIVIL STATION, PATTAMBI THALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN -
679303
3 THE TAHSILDAR
PATTAMBI TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION , PATTAMBI
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679303
4 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
WP(C) NO. 28633 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:80765
KRISHIBHAVAN, THRITHALA PALAKKAD, PIN - 679534
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
THRITHALA VILLAGE PATTAMBI, PIN - 679534
6 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS
BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695033
7 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,, PIN - 678001
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT PREETHA K K
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. 28633 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:80765
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 28633 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i) To issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ
or order to call for the records and to quash Exhibit-P2 Order;
ii) To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider the
petitioner's application (as referred to in Exhibit-P1 and to grant
the same in accordance with law within such time period of may
be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;
iii) Grant such other reliefs as are deemed just and
necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. "[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order
passed by the 2nd 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
2025:KER:80765
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
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:80765
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 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P1 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:80765
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
SKS
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 27/10/25
Judgment dictated 27/10/25
Draft judgment placed 28/10/25
Final judgment uploaded 28/10/25
2025:KER:80765
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28633/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER IN FORM 5 DATED 14/10/2023
BEFORE THRITHALA VILLAGE
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO: 176/2024 DATED
18.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER
