Kerala High Court
Neeno Babu vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 15 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 29325 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:76840
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. 29325 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
NEENO BABU,
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O BABU, CHETTUPUZHAKKARAN HOUSE, 8/347, EAST
FORT P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680005
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SRI.SREEJITH SREENATH
SMT.RINCY KHADER
SMT.K.V.RAJESWARI
SMT.SUSHAMA DEVI M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE RDO, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THRISSUR
CORPORATION,
KRISHI BHAVAN, CHEMBUKKAVU P.O.,THRISSUR, PIN -
680020
WP(C) NO. 29325 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:76840
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT PREETHA K K
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. 29325 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:76840
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 29325 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 by
considering Form 5 application afresh as expeditiously as
possible at any rate within a time frame to 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
2025:KER:76840
the case. ."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order
passed by the 1st respondent rejecting 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.
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
2025:KER:76840
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
2025:KER:76840
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
2025:KER:76840
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 15/10/25
Judgment dictated 15/10/25
Draft judgment placed 16/10/25
Final judgment uploaded 17/10/25
2025:KER:76840
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29325/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.280/2017 OF
S.R.O. AYYANTHOLE DATED 30-01-2017
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
07/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, PERINGAVU VILLAGE
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT PERMIT
NO.DW4/BA/291/21-22 DATED 30-03-2022
ISSUED BY THE THRISSUR CORPORATION
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22-08-2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27-11-
2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 33431 OF 2023
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.8270/2024 DATED
27-05-2024
