Kerala High Court
Amritha Devi Josnan vs The District Collector on 15 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 43313 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:76779
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. 43313 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
AMRITHA DEVI JOSNAN,
AGED 31 YEARS
D/O. JOSE THOTTIPPATTU, DEVI NIVAS, HARITHA NAGAR,
CHAMPAKKARA ROAD, POONITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682038
BY ADVS.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM- 682030
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, K B JACOB ROAD,
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM- 682030
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, NEAR SUBHASH PARK,
MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN - 682011
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MANAKKUNAM VILLAGE OFFICE, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682307
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
UDAYAMPEROOR KRISHI BHAVAN, UDAYAMPEROOR,
THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682307
WP(C) NO. 43313 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:76779
7 THE DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 43313 OF 2024 3
2025:KER:76779
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 43313 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 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 2nd respondent
or the officer authorized under section 2(XVA) of the
Act 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 order passed by the
2nd 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.
2025:KER:76779
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 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
2025:KER:76779
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.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd 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 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
AJ
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 15.10.2025
Draft judgment placed 16.10.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 17.10.2025
2025:KER:76779
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43313/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.02.2021
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
01.12.2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2024, ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE KSREC DATED
05.07.2023
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER
