Kerala High Court
Rishad vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 27 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 39093 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:80186
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. 39093 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RISHAD
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. SULAIMAN, RESIDING AT PUTHUPALLITHERUVU,
BARATHNAGAR, CHADANAMKURISSI ROAD, NURANI P.O,
YAKKARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678004
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF
SMT.ANJANA KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARAKKUNNAM P.O, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE KOTTAYI GRAMA
PANCHAYAT
KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTTAYI P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678572
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KOTTAYI-I VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAYI P.O, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678572
4 THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE
CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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. 39093 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:80186
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 39093 OF 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"I. Quash Exhibit-P2 issuing a writ in the
nature of certiorari;
II. Direct the first respondent to delete the
0.0204 hectors of land comprised in Survey Block No.
1, Re-Survey No. 554/34 in Kottayi-I Village, Alathur
Taluk & Palakkad District from the data bank for the
area;
III. Direct the first respondent to reconsider
and pass appropriate orders on the application for
correction of the mistake in the data bank submitted
by the petitioner afresh after conducting a physical
inspection of the plot and in view of the relevant
provisions and government orders;
IV. Declare that 0.0204 hectors of land
comprised in Survey Block No. 1, Re-Survey No.
554/34 in Kottayi-I Village, Alathur Taluk & Palakkad
District is not a land to be included in the data bank
for the area;
V. To dispense with the production of the
translated copies of the documents in vernacular
language; and VI. Issue such other writ, order or
direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case."
[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.
2025:KER:80186
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 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
2025:KER:80186
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 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Ext.P1 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
production of a copy of this judgment by the
petitioner.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
AJ
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 27.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 27.10.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 29.10.2025
2025:KER:80186
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39093/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
01.04.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
DELETE THE ENTRY CONCERNING HIS PLOT FROM
THE DATA BANK.
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 9571/2023
DATED 10.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
