Kerala High Court
Jameela vs State Of Kerala on 27 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 27848 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:80422
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. 27848 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
JAMEELA
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O MOIDHEENKUTTY URATHODIYIL THRITHALA PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678007
BY ADVS.
SMT.SWETHA R.
SHRI.T.K.SANDEEP
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
SECRETARIAT, STATUE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 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. 27848 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:80422
KRISHIBHAVAN, THRITHALA PALAKKAD, PIN - 678534
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
THRITHALA VILLAGE PATTAMBI, PIN - 679534
6 6. KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE(KSREC)
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695303
7 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
GP ADV.JESSY S SALIM
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. 27848 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:80422
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
WP (C) No.27848 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 reconsider Ext-P2
the petitioner's application (as referred to in Exhibit-P2) 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. and
iv) To issue such directions dispensing production of
English translation of documents in vernacular languages
unless otherwise directed by this Hon'ble Court;" [SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order
passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting Form - 5 application
2025:KER:80422
submitted by her 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
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.
2025:KER:80422
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.P2 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P1 Form - 5
2025:KER:80422
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.
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
2025:KER:80422
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:80422
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27848/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER IN FORM 5 DATED 16/10/2023
BEFORE THRITHALA VILLAGE
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2024
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
