Kerala High Court
Sowmya Rajesh vs The Deputy Collector (Rr) on 15 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 8689 of 2025
1
2025:KER:76872
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. 8689 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
SOWMYA RAJESH,
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O.RAJESH,VELLARAMKUNNIL HOUSE, KOZHUKULLY
P.O.,MANNUTHY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680751
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SRI.SREEJITH SREENATH
SMT.RINCY KHADER
SMT.K.V.RAJESWARI
SMT.SUSHAMA DEVI M.
RESPONDENT(S):
1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
(AUTHORIZED OFFICER AS PER SECTION 2 (XVA) OF THE
KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND
ACT,2008., OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CIVIL
STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN,NADATHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,NADATHARA
P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680751
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOZHUKULLY VILLAGE,KOZHUKULLY P.O.,THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680751
W.P.(C) No. 8689 of 2025
2
2025:KER:76872
BY ADV.
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:
W.P.(C) No. 8689 of 2025
3
2025:KER:76872
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 8689 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, or any other appropriate
Writs, Orders or direction, to call for the records leading to
Exhibit P-4 and to quash the same.
ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate
Writ, Orders or direction commanding the 1 st respondent to
exclude the property of the petitioner from the data bank by
considering the application in Form 5 afresh with the
assistance of the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing
and Environment Centre, Thiruvananthapuram as
expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time frame to be
fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
iii. Issue a Writ to declare that, the impugned Exhibit
P-4 is per se illegal as the same is issued in violation of the
provisions of Act 28 of 2008;
iv. To dispense with the production of English
Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with the
Writ Petition in the interest of justice;
v. 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 the order passed by
2025:KER:76872
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 appearing 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 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
2025:KER:76872
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:
1. Ext.P4 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form - 5 application
submitted by the petitioner in accordance with
law. The authorised officer shall either conduct
a personal inspection of the property or,
2025:KER:76872
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
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 15.10.2025
Judgment dictated 15.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 16.10.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 17.10.2025
2025:KER:76872
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8689/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1130/2012 OF
S.R.O OLLUKKARA DATED 21-03-2012
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 05-12-2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28-10-2024
EXHIBIT P-4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.8881/2024 DATED 05-
11-2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.REV-
P1/55/2020/REV DATED 30-04-2020 ISSUED BY
THE STATE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P-6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D7-13367/2021 DATED
22-04-2022 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER
