Kerala High Court
Chandrika Devi . K vs State Of Kerala on 15 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 20015 of 2023
1
2025:KER:76864
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. 20015 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
CHANDRIKA DEVI . K
AGED 71 YEARS
W/O LATE M.NARAYANAN NAIR, G-4, GALAXY CLIFFORD,
CHILAVANNUR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI,
PIN - 682020
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR
SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM, COLLECTEROTE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI,
PIN - 682030
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
FORT KOCHI, REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE, FORT KOCHI,
KOCHI, PIN - 682001
4 THE TAHSILDAR(LR)
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN - 682011
W.P.(C) No. 20015 of 2023
2
2025:KER:76864
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THEKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE OFFICE, TRIPUNITHURA,
KOCHI, PIN - 682020
BY ADV. SR GP, SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 20015 of 2023
3
2025:KER:76864
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 20015 of 2023
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"1. To call for the records leading to Exhibit P8
and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the same.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to issue
orders removing the property of the petitioner from the
data bank and direct the 4 th respondent to make necessary
entries in the Basic tax register changing the nature of
petitioner's property from 'Nilam' to 'purayidam' in the
light of Exhibit P2 to P5 and as directed in Exhibit P7
Judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court.
3. Any other appropriate, Writ, order or direction
as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court and
4. It is also prayed that this Hon'ble court may be
pleased to dispense with the production of English
translation of the Exhibits in Malayalam for the time being
and the same shall be produced as and when directed by
this Hon'ble Court."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed
by the 3rd respondent rejecting Form - 5 application
2025:KER:76864
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 appearing for the
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.
2025:KER:76864
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:
1. Ext.P8 order is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P6 Form - 5
application in accordance with law. The
authorised officer shall either conduct a
2025:KER:76864
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
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 15.10.2025
Judgment dictated 15.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 16.10.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 17.10.2025
2025:KER:76864
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20015/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
2256/1996 OF THE THRIPUNITHURA
SRO.EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
11/6/1996 OBTAINED BY ONE OF THE
VENDORS OF THE PETITIONER NAMELY
MR.TOMY
EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
OBTAINED BY ONE OF THE VENDORS OF THE
PETITIONER NAMELY MR.ARAVIND KUMAR
EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/01/1996
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE
KERALA LAND UTILISATION ORDER 1976 IN
FAVOUR OF THE VENDORS OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/01/1996
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE
KERALA LAND UTILISATION ORDER 1967 IN
FAVOUR OF THE VENDORS OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 22/5/2020 SUBMITED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
10/09/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN WP(C)29108/2020 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/09/2022
PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON EXHIBIT
P6 APPLICATION
