Kerala High Court
Mahanna Biju John vs The Revenue Divisional ... on 16 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:77540
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 24TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21228 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MAHANNA BIJU JOHN.,
AGED 44 YEARS,
W/O BIJU JOHN, JOHN VILLA, MELOOD .P.O,
ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT F.ORM
PUSHPAVILASOM, AVANEESWARAM, PIDAVOOR VILLAGE ,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 554.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR
SMT.SARITHA G.R.
SHRI.SREEKRISHNADATH PANDARATHIL E.K.
SHRI.R.RAHUL
SMT.MEENAKSHY V.S.
SMT.PREETHY K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PUNALUR, THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE,
PUNALUR, PUNALUR.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691 305.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER.,
PIDAVOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE
PIDAVOOR.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 689 695.
3 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, THALAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691 508.
W.P.(C) No.21228 of 2025
2025:KER:77540
-2-
GP SMT JESSY S SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.21228 of 2025
2025:KER:77540
-3-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 21228 of 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th 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 or direction quashing Exhibit P5 order issued by the 1 st
respondent.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs
or orders directing the 1st respondent to reconsider Exhibit P4
application without any further delay.
(iii) Dispense with filing of English translation of
vernacular documents.
(iv) Grant such other writ, direction or order which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper with the facts and
circumstances of the case."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order
passed by the 1st respondent rejecting Ext.P4 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
2025:KER:77540
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
2025:KER:77540
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.P5 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P4 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
2025:KER:77540
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
ADS
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 16.10.2025
Judgment dictated 16.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 17.10.2025
Final Judgment uploaded 18.10.2025
2025:KER:77540
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21228/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO.71460356 DATED 26/10/2022.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL02050404078/2022 ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER PIDAVOOR.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5
DATED 26/10/2022 GIVEN TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1093/2023
DATED 16/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWS THE NATURE OF
THE LAND.
