Kerala High Court
Asharaf Madathil vs The District Collector on 14 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 2885 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:76398
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. 2885 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ASHARAF MADATHIL,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED, VELUTHODATH HOUSE, KODATHUR PO,
PERUMPADAPPU MALAPPURAM
REP BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MOIDU P,
S/O MOHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 75 YEARS, PARAPULLI,
KODATHUR, PERUMPADPPU PO, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679580
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC
DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY
SRI.JITHIN SAJI ISAAC
SHRI.ABHISHEK S. KUMAR
SHRI.JOSHUA SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PERINTHALMANNA, SHORNUR - PERINTHALMANNA ROAD,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, MARANCHERY PO, MALAPPURAM - 679581
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
MARANCHERY VILLAGE, MARANCHERY PO,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679581
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:
WP(C) NO. 2885 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:76398
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 2885 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 mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to
reconsider Ext.P3 application in Form 5 in accordance
with law and take a decision in the matter after
considering Exhibit P1 and the KSRSEC report;
ii. Call for the records of the case and to pass
appropriate orders; And
iii. Grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case including costs."
[SIC]
2. Petitioner obtained Ext.P4 order, by which Ext.P3
application in Form 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules', for brevity), was rejected. The grievance
of the petitioner is that the contentions of the petitioner were not
considered. Hence, this Writ Petition (C).
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
2025:KER:76398
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 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:
2025:KER:76398
1. Ext.P4 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Ext.P3 application in Form - 5 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.
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
AJ
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 14.10.2025
Draft judgment placed 15.10.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 16.05.2025
2025:KER:76398
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2885/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO. A5-
500/2011 DATED 28.01.2011
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL10030503467/2024 DATED 20.04.2024 OF
MARANCHERRY VILLAGE
Exhibit P3 . TRUE COPY OF FORM 5 DATED 06.03.2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.11.2024 IN FILE
NO. 648/2024 IN APPLICATION NO.
1/2023/1466817 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
