Kerala High Court
Nidhi Nelson Paramel vs The Revenue Divisional Officer (The ... on 15 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 33917 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:76847
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. 33917 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
NIDHI NELSON PARAMEL,
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O.NELSON PARAMEL ANTONY, PARAMEL HOUSE,
PADIVATTOM, EDAPALLY SOUTH P.O., KOCHI, PIN -
682024
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 (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
WP(C) NO. 33917 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:76847
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. 33917 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:76847
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 33917 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]
2025:KER:76847
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 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
2025:KER:76847
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
2025:KER:76847
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
2025:KER:76847
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:76847
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33917/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.928/2020 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 IN W.P.(C)
NO.11370/2024 DATED 20-03-2024
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN FILE NO.1014/2024
AND IN APPLICATION NO. 5/2024/973491
DATED 21-09-2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
