Kerala High Court
Surendran.T.C vs The District Collector on 28 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 22822 of 2023
1
2025:KER:80800
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 22822 OF 2023
PETITIONER(S):
1 SURENDRAN.T.C
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.CHATHAYI, SREEHARI, KANNAMPARIYARAM, WEST
YAKKARA, PALAKKAD POST, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 DIVYA.S
AGED 34 YEARS
D/O.SURENDRAN.T.C, SREEHARI, KANNAMPARIYARAM,
WEST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD POST, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678001
BY ADV SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT(S):
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD., PIN - 678001
3 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
POLPULLY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678101
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHIBHAVAN, POLPULLY.P.O, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678101
W.P.(C) No. 22822 of 2023
2
2025:KER:80800
6 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
POLPULLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, POLPULLY, PALAKKAD
REP.BY ITS CONVENER., PIN - 678101
BY ADV.
GP SMT.JESSY S SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 22822 of 2023
3
2025:KER:80800
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 22822 of 2023
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or
direction and quash Ext.P6, Order dated 02.08.2022 issued
by the 2nd Respondent.
ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or
direction and direct the 2nd respondent to delete the
petitioners' property comprised in Re.Sy.No.288/9,11 in
Block No.45 of Polpully Village, Palakkad Taluk in Palakkad
District having an extent of 0.4294 Hectare from the Ext.P3,
Data Bank.
iii) It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may dispense the
production of English Translation of the documents produced
in the above W.P.(C) and Petitioner undertakes to produce
the same as and when required by this Hon'ble Court. And
iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the
facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends
of justice."[SIC]
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed
by the 2nd respondent rejecting the Form-5 application
submitted by them under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
2025:KER:80800
Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules', for brevity). The
main grievance of the petitioners is that the authorised
officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioners.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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
2025:KER:80800
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.P6 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P5 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
2025:KER:80800
accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at
the cost of the petitioners, 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 petitioners.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 28.10.2025
Judgment dictated 28.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 28.10.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 29.10.2025
2025:KER:80800
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22822/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 30.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA
BANK OF POLPULLY GRAMA PANCHAYA
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS'
APPLICATION DATED 01.06.2022
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
