Kerala High Court
Nafeesa vs Sub Collector/ Revenue Divisional ... on 27 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No.8300 of 2025
1
2025:KER:80879
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. 8300 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
NAFEESA,
AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. KOYA, KALLINGAL
HOUSE,VAIRANGODE POST,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676301
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.P.SUDHEER
SMT.ARUNDHATI NAIR
RESPONDENT(S):
1 SUB COLLECTOR/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676101
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN,THIRUNAVAYA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676301
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
THIRUNAVAYA VILLAGE,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676301
BY ADV.:
GP, SMT 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:
W.P.(C) No.8300 of 2025
2
2025:KER:80879
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.8300 of 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"(i) call for the records leading to Exhibits P3 and P4 and
quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction;
(ii) declare that the property covered by Exhibit P1 is liable to
be excluded from the data bank and direct the 1st
respondent to remove the same from the databank.
(iii) direct the respondents to reconsider petitioner's
application in Form No. 5 in the light of the dictum laid down
by this Hon'ble Court in the decision reported in 2021 (1) KHC
540 (Joy K.K. Vs. RDO), 2023 (2) KHC 359 (Niyas Vs. District
Collector) and 2023 (2) KHC 605 (Sudheesh Vs. RDO);
(iv) dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular
documents;
(v) issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order which
this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case "
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order
passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the Form-5
application submitted by the petitioner under the Kerala
2025:KER:80879
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
2025:KER:80879
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
considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set
aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition(C) is allowed in the
following manner:
1. Ext.P3 order is set aside.
2025:KER:80879
2. The 1st respondent / authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form - 5 application submitted
by the petitioner, 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
production of a copy of this judgment by the
petitioner. Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
nvj
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 27.10.2025
Judgment dictated 27.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 28.10.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 29.10.2025
2025:KER:80879
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8300/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P 1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 12.3.2007
REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. 996/2007
DATED 12.3.2007 OF KODAKKAL SRO
EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND
KOYA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P 2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. RDOTIR/
3204/2021-F3 DATED 13.1.2023 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P 3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 3066/2023 DATED
02.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P 4 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 16.2.2023 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S
PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P 6 PHOTOGRAPHS (4 NOS.) SHOWING ADJACENT
PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER'S
PROPERTY
