Kerala High Court
Annie vs The Revenue Divisional Officer (The ... on 15 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 34156 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:76730
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 23RD ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 34156 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ANNIE,
AGED 67 YEARS
W/O VARKEY C.A,CHIRAMMAL HOUSE,
PANAMKUTTICHIRA,OLLUR (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680306
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SRI.SREEJITH SREENATH
SMT.RINCY KHADER
SMT.K.V.RAJESWARI
SMT.SUSHAMA DEVI M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR
(RR)),
GIVEN THE CHARGE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
UNDER SECTION 2(XVA) OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF
PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT,2008, CIVIL
STATION,AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680306
GP SMT JESSY S SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 34156 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:76730
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 34156 OF 2024
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other
appropriate writs, Orders or Directions to call for the
records leading to Exhibit P-6 and to quash the same;
ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other
appropriate writs, Orders or Directions commanding
the 1st respondent to exclude the property of the
petitioner from the data bank by considering Exhibit
P-4 application submitted in Form No.5 de-novo as
expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time
frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest
of justice;
iii. To dispense with the production of
English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced
along with the Writ Petition in the interest of justice;
iv. Render such other orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed
by the 1st respondent rejecting Ext.P4 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 petitioner.
2025:KER:76730
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 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
2025:KER:76730
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.P6 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider Ext.P4 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 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 15.10.2025
Draft judgment placed 15.10.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 16.10.2025
2025:KER:76730
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34156/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.927/2020 DATED
28.07.2020 OF S.R.O KUTTANNELLUR
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
02.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, OLLUR
VILLAGE
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY
WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE PROPERTY IS
SURROUNDED BY OTHER SMALL PLOTS
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 02.03.2024
THROUGH ONLINE
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-03-2024 IN
W.P.(C) NO.11111 OF 2024
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.6/2024/973491 DATED 17-09-
2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
