(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the
Respondents to allow the application submitted by the
petitioner in Form-5 in Rule (4d) of the Kerala Conservation
of Paddy and Wet Land Rules, 2008 to the extent in respect of
8.14 Ares of property comprised in Re-sy.No.288/5 in Block
No.26 of Nemom Village after physically verifying the
property and ground realities and to obtain reports from the
7th KSREC and correct the entries contained in Ext.P3 Data
Bank within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble
Court taking into consideration of Exhibits P4 to P6.
2025:KER:80417
(iii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get allow
the application in Form-5 in Rule (4d) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Rules, 2008 to the
extent in respect of 8.14 Ares of property comprised in Re-
sy.No.288/5 in Block No.26 of Nemom Village after physically
verifying the property and ground realities and to obtain
reports from the 7th KSREC and correct the entries
contained in Ext.P3 Data Bank taking into consideration of
Exhibits P4 to P6.
(iv) To dispense with the translation of the documents
produced in the Vernacular Language.
(v) To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 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
2025:KER:80417
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 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
2025:KER:80417
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.P7 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.
2025:KER:80417
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 27/10/25
Final judgment uploaded 28/10/25
2025:KER:80417
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22297/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
NO:1593/2017 OF NEMOM SUB REGISTRY DATED
27/7/2017
Exhibit-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND REMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 9/6/2025 FOR THE PERIOD
2025-26
Exhibit-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.E-16/51965/17
DATED 7/6/2019 PUBLISHED BY THE 8TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P4 THE PHOTOGRAPH AND GROUND REALITIES OF
12.11 ARES OF PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE
NO.RTSL/2025/00051 DATED 30/3/2025 ISSUED
BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit-P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.R-
CO10100-24190210 DATED 25/9/2024 ISSUED
BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN FILE
NO.663/2025 IN APPLICATION
NO.9/2024/718216 DATED 25/5/2025 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
29/5/2025 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR
THE PERIOD 2025-26
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.975/2025 OF
NEMON SUB REGISTRY DATED 12/6/2025
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT DATED 19/6/2025 IN RESPECT OF
3.97 ARES OF PROPERTY
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure-R8(a) .A true copy of the building certificate
No.PTBC-03935957-2025 dated 04.08.2025
Annexure-R8(b) A true copy of the provisional order
dated 16.07.2025
