Kerala High Court
Sunil Kumar vs The Deputy Collector (Rr) on 14 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C).No.6587 of 2025
1
2025:KER:76317
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. 6587 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SUNIL KUMAR,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN KAKKERY, KAKKERY HOUSE, MUKKATTUKARA,
NETTISSERY P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680651
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SRI.SREEJITH SREENATH
SMT.RINCY KHADER
SMT.K.V.RAJESWARI
SMT.SUSHAMA DEVI M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
)(AUTHORIZED OFFICER AS PER SECTION 2 (XVA) OF THE
KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND
ACT,2008.,OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CIVIL
STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN,OLLUKKARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
680655
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
OLLUKKARA,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680655
W.P.(C).No.6587 of 2025
2
2025:KER:76317
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.6587 of 2025
3
2025:KER:76317
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.6587 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 appropriate
Writs, Orders or direction, to call for the records
leading to Exhibit P-6 and to quash the same.
ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate
Writ, Orders or direction commanding the 1st
respondent to exclude the property of the petitioner
from the data bank by considering Exhibit P-4
application in Form 5 afresh with the assistance of the
report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and
Environment Centre, Thiruvananthapuram as
expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time
frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
iii. Issue a Writ to declare that, the impugned Exhibit P-
6 is per se illegal as the same is issued in violation of
the provisions of Act 28 of 2008;
iv. To dispense with the production of English
Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with
the Writ Petition in the interest of justice;
v. Render such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case." (SIC)
2025:KER:76317
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed
by the 1st 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.
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.
2025:KER:76317
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)
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.P6 order is set aside.
b) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P4 - Form 5 application
submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.
2025:KER:76317
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
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:76317
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6587/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1679 OF 2008
OF S.R.O THRISSUR DATED 04-04-2008
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 23-07-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 05-07-2023
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER THROUGH ONLINE BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02-12-
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-11-2024
IN W.P.(C) NO. 37155 OF 2024
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.452/2024 DATED 30-
10-2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
