Kerala High Court
Narayanan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 15 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 21009 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:76838
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. 21009 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
NARAYANAN
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.SUKUMARAN, KUNNATHU VEEDU, VATTEKKAD,
ELAVANCHERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678506
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
SMT.VIJINA K.
SRI.ARUL MURALIDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PALAKKAD OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT (DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORIZED
COMMITTEE UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY
LAND AND WETLAND ACT, 2008), PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
ELAVANCHERY, (CONVENER UNDER LOCAL LEVEL
MONITORING COMMITTEE UNDER ACT 28/2008), OFFICE OF
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ELAVANCHERY, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678506
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ELAVANCHERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678506
WP(C) NO. 21009 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:76838
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, C BLOCK, VIKAS
BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
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. 21009 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:76838
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 21009 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"i. Call for the records leading to Exhibit P6 and
quash the same by means of Writ of Certiorari or any other
Writ Order or Direction;
ii. issue of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the
like nature direction or order commanding the 1st
Respondent to allow Exhibit P5 application of the Petitioner
made in Form 5 under "Act 28/2008" by excluding the
property from the land data bank;
iii. dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular
documents; and
iv. pass such other orders deemed fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case and that may be
prayed hereafter. ."[SIC]
2025:KER:76838
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order
passed by the 1st 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 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:76838
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:76838
following manner:
1. Ext.P6 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P5 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 judgment
2025:KER:76838
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:76838
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21009/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED
NO. 1145/2017 OF SRO, KOLLENGODE DATED
21-6-2017 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF
PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 24-7-2024 ISSUED FROM THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 6-12-2024 ISSUED TO
PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01-02-2023
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN FILE NO.
RDOPKD/3238/2022-M2 DATED 28-6-2022
PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
