Kerala High Court
Sabeena Beegum A vs Deputy Collector,(Dm), (Revenue ... on 14 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 37121 of 2025
1
2025:KER:76082
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. 37121 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
SABEENA BEEGUM A
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O SHAJAHAN, KAITHARA VILAKATHU VEEDU,
AMBALLOOR, KAZHAKUTTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST,
PIN - 695574
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY
SMT.NASEEMA BEEVI.A.V.
SMT.A.AFREEZAA KHAN
SHRI.DINOOP P.D.
SMT.RICHU HANNA RANJITH
RESPONDENT(S):
1 DEPUTY COLLECTOR,(DM), (REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER)
REVENUE DIVIIONAL OFFICE THIRUVANATHAPURAM,
PIN - 695541
2 VILLAGE OFFICER
KAZHAKOOTTAM VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DIST, PIN - 695582
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KAZHAKOOTTAM AGRICULTURAL OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST, PIN - 695582
W.P.(C) No. 37121 of 2025
2
2025:KER:76082
BY ADV.
SR GP, SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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. 37121 of 2025
3
2025:KER:76082
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 37121 of 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exhibit P-
3 order.
ii. Direct the first respondent to reconsider the
Exhibit P- 2 Form 5 application in accordance with law
and take a decision after considering the KSRSEC report
and other relevant factors mentioned in R.4(4F), within a
time limit to be prescribed by this honourable Court.
iii. Grant such other relief as this Honorable
Court may deem fit."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed
by the 1st respondent rejecting Form - 5 application
submitted by her under the Kerala 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
2025:KER:76082
petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for 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 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
2025:KER:76082
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 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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
2025:KER:76082
pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
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 14.10.2025
Judgment dictated 14.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 14.10.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 15.10.2025
2025:KER:76082
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37121/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE
YEAR 2024-25 DATED 31/08/2024
EXHIBIT P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 3/11/2022
EXHIBIT P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER FILE NO.
450/2024 DATED 07/09/2024
