Kerala High Court
Jiji Joby vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 39905 of 2025
1
2025:KER:82171
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. 39905 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
JIJI JOBY
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O JOBI MANNUKKADAN HOUSE, KILLANNOOR VILLAGE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680581
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAHUL RAJ P.
SRI.KIRAN NARAYANAN
SMT.MEERA R. MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
THRISSUR CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN
- 680003
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, MULAKUNATHUKAVU , THRISSUR,
PIN - 680581
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MULAKUNATHUKAVU PO, KILLANNUR TALUK THRISSUR,
DISTRICT, PIN - 680581
W.P.(C) No. 39905 of 2025
2
2025:KER:82171
5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, VIKAS BHAVAN
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
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. 39905 of 2025
3
2025:KER:82171
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.39905 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit
P3 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd Respondent to
reconsider Form 5 application submitted by the Petitioner for
removal of the subject land from the Data Bank, after
conducting a proper and independent enquiry, in accordance
with the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land
and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules framed thereunder;
iii. Direct the 2nd Respondent to obtain a report from the
Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre
(KSRSEC) to ascertain the exact nature and classification of
the land as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of
the Act, before disposing of the Form 5 application afresh;
iv. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
the 2nd respondent rejecting the Form-5 application
submitted by her under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules', for brevity). The
2025:KER:82171
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 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],
2025:KER:82171
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.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd 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
2025:KER:82171
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:82171
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39905/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED DEED NO.
3380/2007 DATED 21.04.2007
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX PAYMENT
RECEIPT DATED 05.06.2025
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
02.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
LAND WITH FULLY GROWN TREES AND OTHER
VEGETATION
