Kerala High Court
Roy George vs State Of Kerala on 27 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:80132
WP(C) NO. 39958 OF 2025
1
pIN 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. 39958 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
ROY GEORGE
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O GEORGE V M, 24 MORBANK DR, TORONTO, ONTARIO,
M1V 2M3 CANADA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER, THOMAS CHACKO, AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O T T CHACKO, THOPPIL HOUSE, MUTHOLY POST,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686573
BY ADVS.
SRI.AVANEESH KOYIKKARA
SMT.MANJUSHA K.U.
SHRI.ASHWIN SUNIL KUMAR
SHRI.FELIX JOHN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTER
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, 1ST FLOOR, C BLOCK,
VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
VIKAS BHAVAN POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., PIN
- 695033
2025:KER:80132
WP(C) NO. 39958 OF 2025
2
3 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), KOTTAYAM
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, CIVIL STATION,
COLLECTORATE POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -
686002
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, MEENACHIL, KRISHI BHAVAN, MEENACHIL,
EDAMATTAM POST, KOTTAYAM DIST., PIN - 686578
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, MEENACHIL
KRISHI BHAVAN, MEENACHIL, EDAMATTAM POST,
KOTTAYAM DIST., PIN - 686578
6 VILLAGE OFFICER, POOVARANI
VILLAGE OFFICE, POOVARANI, EDAMATTAM POST,
KOTTAYAM DIST., PIN - 686578
7 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALA, PALA POST,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686575
SMT DEEPA V, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:80132
WP(C) NO. 39958 OF 2025
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.39958 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order, or direction, quashing Exhibit P4 Order
as unjust and illegal;
ii. To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order, or direction, quashing Exhibit P2 to the
extent to which the land of the petitioner is included
as paddy land in the Data Bank prepared by the 4 th
respondent;
iii. To declare the land in question does not fall under
the purview of a paddy land or wet land defined in
the Act and therefore liable to be removed from the
Data Bank;
iv. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding
the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders removing the
entries regarding the petitioner's property from the
2025:KER:80132
WP(C) NO. 39958 OF 2025
Data Bank, after strictly following the procedures
prescribed in law and take steps to publish an
erratum notification in Kerala Gazette for the same,
within a time frame of two months or such period as
this Hon'ble Court may fix;
v. Pass any other orders or directions that this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
Justice.
vi. Dispense with the translation of the documents
produced in the vernacular language.
vii. Award cost.
(SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the
7th 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
2025:KER:80132
WP(C) NO. 39958 OF 2025
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 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
2025:KER:80132
WP(C) NO. 39958 OF 2025
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 7th 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 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
2025:KER:80132
WP(C) NO. 39958 OF 2025
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:80132
WP(C) NO. 39958 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39958/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
25.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE POOVARANI
VILLAGE OFFICER
Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA
BANK PUBLISHED ON 12.01.2021
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
RDO, DATED 22.07.2022
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 606/2023
DATED 28.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 7TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.05.2025,
FMB, AND FEE CHALLAN SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.05.2025
SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
