Kerala High Court
Divakaran A vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 14 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C).No.11560 of 2025
1
2025:KER:76246
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. 11560 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DIVAKARAN A.,
S/O LATE APPUNNI, 'HRISHIVADAM', THARAVANATTU KALAM,
KANNADI POST, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678701
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
SHRI.FADHI RAHMAN
SMT.FIDA HUSNA P.P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, KUTHANUR PANCHAYAT,KUTHANUR POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678721
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KUTHANUR 1 VILLAGE, KUTHANUR POST, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678721
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT JESSY S SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.11560 of 2025
2
2025:KER:76246
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.11560 of 2025
---------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i) call for the records relating to exhibits P1 to P7.
ii) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or
order or direction quashing Ext.P7;
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
or order or direction, declaring that the property
covered in exhibits P1 to P6 is liable to be removed
from the data bank and accordingly form 5 application
made for the purpose by the petitioner may be
allowed removing the land covered therein from the
data bank as contemplated under the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008;
iv) dispense with the production of true English
translation of the Malayalam documents produced
herewith; and
v) pass such other and further orders as are deemed
fit and necessary in the interests of justice." (SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order passed by
the 1st respondent, by which an application submitted by the
petitioner under Form 5 in accordance to the Kerala
2025:KER:76246
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008,
(for short, the Act and the Rules) is rejected.
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
2025:KER:76246
[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:
a) Ext.P7 order is set aside.
b) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Form 5 application 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.
2025:KER:76246
c) 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 receipt
of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
Judgment reserved NA
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:76246
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11560/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.214/2008 OF SRO,
KUZHALMANNAM DATED 28-01-2008.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT IN THE
NAME OF THE PETITIONER DATED 29-10-2018.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 12-03-2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
08-05-2024 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 08-05-2024 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE
PROPERTY COVERED IN EXHIBITS P1 TO P5.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-06-2022
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
