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. 32191 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:76835
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. 32191 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
JOY, S/O.CHAKKUNNI, CHERADAI
AGED 62 YEARS
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
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. 32191 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:76835
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 32191 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 and
circumstances of the case and award costs. ."[SIC]
2025:KER:76835
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 the relevant date
2025:KER:76835
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.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the
2025:KER:76835
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 date
2025:KER:76835
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:76835
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32191/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL08034904946/2022, DATED 14/12/2022 OF
THE PETITIONER'S LAND
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATABANK OF VELOOKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE APPLICATION NO.
6/2023/863672, DATED 27/01/2023,
PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER, TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, DATED 29/05/2024
