Thursday, 23, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kuttykrishna Pillai vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 10148 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 10148 Ker
Judgement Date : 27 October, 2025

Kerala High Court

Kuttykrishna Pillai vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 27 October, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 38089 of 2024
                                   1



                                                  2025:KER:80468



           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. 38089 OF 2024

PETITIONER(S):

             KUTTYKRISHNA PILLAI,
             AGED 74 YEARS
             S/O NEELAKANDA PILLAI, MANIMALA HOUSE,
             RAMAPURAM P.O, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
             PIN - 686576


             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.K.SOYUZ
             SRI.E.V.BABYCHAN




RESPONDENT(S):

     1       THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             PALA RDO OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PALA,
             KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686575

     2       DEPUTY COLLECTOR(L.A),
             KOTTAYAM CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O,
             KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002

     3       AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
             KRISHI BHAVAN, RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
             RAMAPURAM P.O, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
             PIN - 686576

     4       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
             RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE, RAMAPURAM
             P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686576
 W.P.(C) No. 38089 of 2024
                                   2



                                                      2025:KER:80468



     5       THE DIRECTOR,
             KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
             CENTER `C' BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN,
             THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033


             BY ADV. 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:
 W.P.(C) No. 38089 of 2024
                                    3



                                                      2025:KER:80468




                     P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
               ---------------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C) No. 38089 of 2024
           -----------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 27th day of October, 2025.


                             JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

reliefs:

"i) issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P4 order and quash the same

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application in form No. 5, after obtaining report from the 5th respondent KSREC and in the light of the Judgments in Adani lnfrastructures and Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. State Kerala, 2014 (1) KLT 774, Lalu V. State of Kerala 2020(5) KLT 712 , Joy V. Revenue Divisional officer / Sub collector, 2021 (1) KLT 433 , Arthasasthra Ventures (India ) LLP V. state of Kerala , 2022 (7) KHC 561 and in Mureleedharan Nair R V. RDO 2023 (4 ) KHC

524. Aparna Sasi lvlenon V. RDO , 2023 (6) KHC 83 and direct to make necessary corrections in Ext P2 data bank by deleting 34.50 Ares ofland comprised in 480/3 & 480/5 in Block No. 26 of Ramapuram Village , from the data bank.

iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court

2025:KER:80468

deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case including the cost of this Writ Petition.

iv) To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents."[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order

passed by the 1st 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

based on the reports of the Agricultural Officer and the

Village Officer. There is no indication in the order that

the authorised officer has directly inspected the

2025:KER:80468

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

Court in the above judgments. Therefore, I am of the

2025:KER:80468

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 date of receipt of

such pictures. On the other hand, if the

authorised officer opts to personally

inspect the property, the application

2025:KER:80468

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
DM
Judgment reserved             NA
Date of Judgment          27.10.2025
Judgment dictated         27.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed     27.10.2025

Final Judgment uploaded 28.10.2025

2025:KER:80468

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38089/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.04.2024 OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF NOTIFIED DATA BANK OF RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 18.01.2021 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.05.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. REV-

P1/149/2023 -REV DATED 25.03.2024

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter