Kerala High Court
Mohan Varkey vs The District Collector on 14 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 30369 of 2025
1
2025:KER:76446
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. 30369 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
MOHAN VARKEY
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. T. J.VARKEY, THEKKEDATH HOUSE,PALLICHAKKALA
ROAD, SOUTH EROOR, TRIPUNITHURA., PIN - 682306
BY ADVS.
SHRI.VINU CHAND
SHRI.GEEVARGHESE MATHEW
SMT.SHEENA K.S.
SHRI.RAGIN ROY
SMT.ANU PAUL
SHRI.RAJAN K. PAUL
SHRI.KEVIN SEBY MANIKATHAN
SHRI.ABIJITH C.
RESPONDENT(S):
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN - 682312
W.P.(C) No. 30369 of 2025
2
2025:KER:76446
4 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
THRIPPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, KRISHI BHAVAN,
THRIPPUNITHURA PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
NADAMA VILLAGE, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682301
6 THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND
ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
SENAT HOUSE CAMPUS , PMG , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
BY ADV. 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. 30369 of 2025
3
2025:KER:76446
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 30369 of 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"i) Call for the records leading to Ext P1 order and
issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash Ext P1.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 2 nd
respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi to
reconsider and dispose of the Form 5 application filed by
the petitioner, in the light of the report from the 5 th
respondent The Village Officer, Nadama Village along with
the recommendation of the 4 th respondent Agriculture
Officer, Thrippunithura Municipality, at the earliest; and
iii) Grant the petitioner such other reliefs which
this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstance of the
case."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed
by the 2nd respondent rejecting Form - 5 application
submitted by him under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
2025:KER:76446
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 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],
2025:KER:76446
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:
1. Ext.P1 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 law. The authorised officer
shall either conduct a personal inspection
2025:KER:76446
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.
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 15.10.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 15.10.2025
2025:KER:76446
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30369/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
11.08.2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
BY REJECTING THE APPLICATION
