Kerala High Court
Jahfar C vs State Of Kerala on 27 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:80122
WP(C) NO. 39880 OF 2025
1
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. 39880 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
JAHFAR C
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED KOYA, AMINA HOUSE, KARANTHUR,
KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673571
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SIDHARTH O.
SHRI.SUSANTH SHAJI
SHRI.ALBIN A. JOSEPH
SMT.NEKHA VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
69500
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
KOZHIKODE OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE,
KERALA, PIN - 673020
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PERUVAYAL PERUVAYAL,
POOVATTUPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
2025:KER:80122
WP(C) NO. 39880 OF 2025
2
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PERUVAYAL VILLAGE, 1ST FLOOR, SHADOW BUILDING,
KALLERI, PERUVAYA PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:80122
WP(C) NO. 39880 OF 2025
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.39880 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for
the records leading to Ext-P5 order passed by the
2nd respondent and examine the same and quash
the same by holding it as illegal, unsustainable and
unfounded in the facts and circumstances.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing
the 2nd respondent to take up Ext-P4 application,
reconsider the same and issue fresh orders after
considering all other factors mentioned in Rule
4(4F) (4E) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddyland
and Wetland Act,2008.
iii. Allow the petitioner to recover the full costs
incurred for the institution and conduct of the writ
petition (civil) from the respondents.
iv. Dispense with production of English translation of
vernacular documents.
(SIC)
2025:KER:80122
WP(C) NO. 39880 OF 2025
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
the 2nd respondent rejecting the 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 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.
2025:KER:80122
WP(C) NO. 39880 OF 2025
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 following
manner:
1. Ext.P5 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P4 Form - 5
application in accordance with the law. The
authorised officer shall either conduct a
2025:KER:80122
WP(C) NO. 39880 OF 2025
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 copy of this judgment by the
petitioner.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
JV
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 27.10.2025
Judgment dictated 27.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 27.10.2025
Final Judgment 28.10.2025
uploaded
2025:KER:80122
WP(C) NO. 39880 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39880/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.
2754/2019 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
CHATHAMANGALAM DATED 12/12/2019
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BASIC TAX
RECEIPT DATED 26/09/2023 ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS
OF THE PROPERTY
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FORM 5
APPLICATION DATED 10/05/2022 PREFERRED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
14/11/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
