Kerala High Court
Joy, S/O.Chakkunni, Cheradai vs State Of Kerala on 15 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 31648 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:76832
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. 31648 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 JOY, S/O.CHAKKUNNI, CHERADAI
AGED 62 YEARS
KOTTANELLUR, MANNARAMOOLA KOTTANELLUR, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680662
2 MILAN,
AGED 23 YEARS
S/O. JOY, CHERADAI KOTTANELLUR, MANNARAMOOLA
KOTTANELLUR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680662
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOBY CYRIAC
SHRI.KURIAN K JOSE
SMT. DEVIKA T.R.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA ,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKKUDA, 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION RD,
ANNEXE, IRINJALAKKUDA, KERALA, PIN - 680125
WP(C) NO. 31648 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:76832
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
VELOOKKARA, KRISHI BHAVAN VELOOKKARA,THRISSUR, PIN
- 680661
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. 31648 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:76832
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 31648 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 any other appropriate
writ, order calling for the records leading to Ext.P4 and
quash Ext P4 order.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3
application afresh, without referring to the report of 3rd
respondent and pass an appropriate order after obtaining
and referring to the KSREC report of status of the Land
before the commencement of the Act, within a timeframe
that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
iii) Pass an appropriate order dispensing with the
translation of vernacular documents produced in the
Memorandum of Writ Petition and accepting the same.
iv) Such other appropriate writ, order, or direction that
this Hon'ble court may deem fit and necessary in the facts
2025:KER:76832
and circumstances of the case and award costs. ."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order
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 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
2025:KER:76832
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
aside.
2025:KER:76832
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the
following manner:
1. Ext.P4 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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
2025:KER:76832
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:76832
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31648/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL08034904419/2023 DATED 28/11/2023 OF
THE PETITIONER'S LAND
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATABANK DATED 10/03/2021 OF VELOOKKARA
GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE APPLICATION NO.
11/2023/863672, DATED 06/02/2023,
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS, TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, DATED 28/05/2024
