Kerala High Court
Joseph Donie John vs The District Collector on 15 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 6324 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:76839
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. 6324 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
JOSEPH DONIE JOHN,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. M.T. JOHN, MUTHUKATTIL HOUSE, SIVA TEMPLE
ROAD, THOTTAKKATTUKARA P.O, BYE LINE NO.1,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683108
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682030
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,K B JACOB
ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (D.M),
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682030
WP(C) NO. 6324 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:76839
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
PARAVUR TALUK OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, POLICE STATION
ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE,MUPPATHADAM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683110
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KADUNGALLOOR KRISHI BHAVAN, KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683110
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. 6324 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:76839
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 6324 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. P3 order and quash the same.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order
or direction directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider
petitioner's Form 5 application and pass orders afresh taking
note of Ext. P4 report from KSREC.
iii) To dispense with the filing of translation of
vernacular documents.
iv) 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 Ext.P3 order
2025:KER:76839
passed by the 3rd 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 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.
2025:KER:76839
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
following manner:
2025:KER:76839
1. Ext.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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
2025:KER:76839
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:76839
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6324/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
12.04.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
24.08.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2024,
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KSREC
DATED 27.11.2024
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
