Kerala High Court
Sibil Jose vs The District Collector on 30 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No.5439 of 2025
1
2025:KER:82600
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 5439 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
SIBIL JOSE,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. JOSE, MUNDANMANI HOUSE,
KALLETTUMKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680683
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENT(S):
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES RD,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,1ST FLOOR,
CHEMMANDA ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN -
680125
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
CHALAKUDY TALUK OFFICE, THIRD FLOOR, MUNICIPAL TOWN
HALL COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR, PIN -
680307
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KALLETUMKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, KALLETUMKARA,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680683
W.P.(C) No.5439 of 2025
2
2025:KER:82600
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
ALOOR KRISHI BHAVAN, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, ALOOR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680697
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
BY ADV.:
GP, SRI. JIBU T.S,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.5439 of 2025
3
2025:KER:82600
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.5439 of 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to
Ext P3 order and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider Ext P2
application and pass orders afresh after obtaining a report
from the 7th respondent, KSREC with regard to the nature of
the property as on 2008.
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 7th respondent
to file a report before the 3rd and 6th respondent with regard
to nature and lie of the petitioner's property in 2008.
iv. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular
documents.
v. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this
Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case" [SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order
passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting Ext.P2 Form-5
application submitted by the petitioner under the Kerala
2025:KER:82600
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:82600
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:82600
2. The 3rd respondent / authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 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 30.10.2025
Judgment dictated 30.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 01.11.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 03.11.2025
2025:KER:82600
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5439/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
13.04.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
06.05.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
07.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
