Kerala High Court
Anwar Hussain vs District Collector on 14 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 37914 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:76115
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. 37914 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
ANWAR HUSSAIN
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMADKUTTY, NAYATTUVALAPPIL, KILLIMANGALAM,
TRISSUR, PIN - 680591
BY ADV SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, TRISSUR, PIN - 695003
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CUM SUB COLLECTOR
QUARTER NO.B-3, CIVIL LANE ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR,
AYYANTHOLE, TRISSUR, PIN - 680003
3 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTESENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
4 THAHASILDAR(LR)
TALUK OFFICE, THALAPPILLY, WADAKKENCHERY, TRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
5 VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, KILLIMANGALAM, TRISSUR, PIN - 680591
WP(C) NO. 37914 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:76115
6 AGRICULTURE OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, PANJAL, TRISSUR, PIN - 679531
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 37914 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:76115
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 37914 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
(i) "To issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate
writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P5 order passed by the
2nd respondent rejecting Exhibit:-P2 Form.5 Application.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction or order commanding the 2nd
respondent to allow Ext.P2 application after physically verifying
the scheduled property.
(iii) To dispense with the English translation of Exhibits in
vernacular language produced along with the above writ
petition.
(iv) To issue such other reliefs this Honorable Court may
deem fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of
the case." [sic]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, by
which an application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5 of
the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules,
2025:KER:76115
2008 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 in Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh U
v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT
2025:KER:76115
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.P5 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd 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,
2025:KER:76115
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
SKS
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 14/10/25
Judgment dictated 14/10/25
Draft judgment placed 15/10/25
Final judgment uploaded 15/10/25
2025:KER:76115
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37914/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit:-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KILLMANGALAM DATED 04/12/2023
Exhibit:-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
24/11/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit:-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 21/12/2023 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit:-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT DATED 02/03/2024
Exhibit:-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/05/2024
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
