Kerala High Court
Subash R vs The District Collector on 14 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C).No.30193 of 2025
1
2025:KER:76312
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 22ND ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 30193 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SUBASH R
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O RAMACHANDRAN K, RESIDING AT WEST HOUSE, 30/420,
WEST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.VINOD
SHRI.SUHAIL M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PARAKKUNNAM, VIDYUT
NAGAR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
3 THE TAHASILDAR (LR)
PALAKKAD TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
YAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, YAKKARA, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678001
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY KRISHI BHAVAN, PALAKKAD, PIN -
W.P.(C).No.30193 of 2025
2
2025:KER:76312
678001
6 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT JESSY S SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.30193 of 2025
3
2025:KER:76312
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.30193 of 2025
---------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction, calling for the records leading to Ext P4
order and quash the original of the same.
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext
P3 Form 5 application and pass orders afresh after
obtaining report from the 6th Respondent.
iii. To dispense with filing of the translation of
vernacular documents.
iv. to issue such other writ, order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case." (SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed
by the 2nd respondent, by which an application submitted by
the petitioner under Form 5 in accordance to the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008,
(for short, the Act and the Rules) is rejected.
2025:KER:76312
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 the statutory requirements. The impugned order is
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 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)
2025:KER:76312
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:
a) Ext.P4 order is set aside.
b) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 - Form 5 application
submitted by the petitioner in accordance with 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.
c) If satellite pictures are called for, the
application shall be disposed of within three months
2025:KER:76312
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 receipt of a certified copy
of this judgment by the petitioner.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
Date of Judgment 14/10/25
Judgment dictated 14/10/25
Draft Judgment placed 14/10/25
Final Judgment uploaded 15/10/25
2025:KER:76312
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30193/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
01.04.2025
EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATA BANK DATED 24.03.2012
EXHIBIT P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN FORM 5 BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 24.01.2024
EXHIBIT P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 30.05.2025
