Kerala High Court
Fakrudheen vs The District Collector on 15 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 588 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:76826
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. 588 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
FAKRUDHEEN,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED, CHANGARATH VALAPPIL, KOOTTANAD,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679533
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678013
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OTTAPPALAM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OTTAPALAM,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679101
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678013
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
WP(C) NO. 588 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:76826
PATTAMBI TALUK OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR, MINI CIVIL
STATION, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679303
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
NAGALASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE, KOOTTANAD, NAGALASSERY,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679533
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
NAGALASSERY KRISHI BHAVAN, KOOTTANAD, NAGALASSERY,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679533
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
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. 588 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:76826
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 588 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading
to Ext P2 and P3 orders and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction directing the 2nd respondent or the officer authorized
under section 2(XVA) of the Act to reconsider Form 5 application
and pass orders afresh after obtaining a report from the 7 th
respondent, KSREC with regard to the nature of the property as
on 2008.
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 7th
respondent to file a report before the 2 nd respondent or the
officer authorized under section 2(XVA) of the Act and 6th
respondent with regard to nature and lie of the petitioner's
property in 2008.
2025:KER:76826
iv. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular
documents.
v. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this
Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances
of the case. "[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P3
orders passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting Form - 5
application submitted by him 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
2025:KER:76826
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
2025:KER:76826
aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following
manner:
1. Exts.P2 and P3 orders are set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider 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
2025:KER:76826
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:76826
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 588/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
24.10.2019
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
