Kerala High Court
Sreedevi Nair vs The District Collector on 30 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 39505 of 2025
1
2025:KER:82065
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. 39505 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
SREEDEVI NAIR
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O SIVASANKARAN NAIR, KALAROTE HOUSE, FNRA 505,
KOLAZHI P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680010
BY ADV SRI.MAHESH V.MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR
THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
4 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
KOLAZHI PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, , KRISHIBHAVAN, ST.
ALPHONSA NAGAR, THIROOR, THIRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN
- 680581
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
W.P.(C) No. 39505 of 2025
2
2025:KER:82065
POTORE VILLAGE OFFICE, CHAMAKKAD ROAD, KUTTUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680013
BY ADV.
GP SMT DEEPA V
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. 39505 of 2025
3
2025:KER:82065
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.39505 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i) To set aside Ext P5 & P6 orders to the extent
rejecting the petitioner's prayer to remove her immovable
property having an extent of 2.12 ares in Re.survey No.
183/1 (old survey No. 174/2) of Pottore Village from the data
bank of Kolazhi Grama Panchayath published on 14.01.2020
and remove said property from data bank.
ii) Alternatively direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider
Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner which has
been resulted in Ext P5 order.
iii) To grant such other identical reliefs including the
costs of these proceedings.
iv) To dispense with the production of English
translation of the documents in the vernacular language
which are produced as exhibits in the above Writ petition
( Civil )"[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed
by the 2nd and 3rd respondents rejecting the Form-5
applications submitted by her under the Kerala Conservation
of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules', for brevity).
2025:KER:82065
The main grievance of the petitioner is that the authorised
officers have 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 orders. I am of
the considered opinion that the authorised officers have
failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The
impugned orders were passed by the authorised officers
solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. There
is no indication in the orders that the authorised officers
have 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 officers have
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:82065
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 orders are 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
orders are to be set aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following
manner:
1. Exts.P5 and P6 orders are set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the 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:82065
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
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 30.10.2025
Judgment dictated 30.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 31.10.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 01.11.2025
2025:KER:82065
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39505/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
4064/2014 OF THRISSUR SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE DATED 12.09.2014
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. SALE DEED
NO. 4307/2012 OF THRISSUR SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE DATED 24.08.2012
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY RELEVANT PORTION OF DATA
BANK OF KOLAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE ON
14.01.2020
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
17.01.2025 OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
FOR THE YEAR 2024-2025
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 09.06.2023
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.01.2025 OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.11.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO MR.
NITHIN JOSE
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.11.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO MR SHAJU
