Kerala High Court
Vinothini M vs The District Collector, Palakkad on 15 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 6998 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:76782
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. 6998 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
VINOTHINI M.,
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O JAYAKRISHNAN R,KADUNGATH HOUSE, KANNADI P.O.,
HONEY NAGAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678701
BY ADVS.
SHRI.A.R.GANGADAS
SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR
SHRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN
SRI.R.K.RAKESH
SMT.NANDANA BABU T.
SMT.NANDIDA SEBASTIAN
SHRI.NAVEEN P. MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFIICE, CIVIL STATION, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678001
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KANNADI-I VILLAGE OFFICE, KANNADI P.O., PALAKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678701
WP(C) NO. 6998 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:76782
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER *[CORRECTED]
PUTHUPARIYARAM KRISHIBHAVAN, KANNADI,P.O., PALAKKAD
*[THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KANNADI KRISHIBHAVAN,
KANNADI P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN 678701 (ADDRESS OF R5 IS
CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 IN I.A.1/2025
IN WP(C)6998/2025)]
GP SMT JESSY S SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 6998 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:76782
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 6998 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 writ or
order to call for the records leading to Exhibit P5 order and quash the
same.
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the
Form 5 application afresh taking note of the Exhibit P7 circular within
a time frame fixed by the Hon'ble Court.
iii. dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular
documents.
iv. issue such other writ, order, or direction as this Hon'ble
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.
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
2025:KER:76782
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 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:76782
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:
1. Ext.P5 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider 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:76782
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6998/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 872 OF 2015 OF
SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, PALAKKAD DATED 27-03-2015
EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT NO
KL09050601254/2024 DATED 24-02-2024 ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE WITH
NO. 65452554 DATED 10-06-2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16-06-2022
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO: 2048/2024 DATED
13-09-2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR WITH NO.
LSGD-RA1/57/2025 DATED 11-02-2025
