Kerala High Court
Navas vs State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:77253
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. 38032 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
NAVAS.,
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O. IBRAHAM KUTTY, PUNNELIPALLAM HOUSE,
U.C COLLEGE P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 683 102.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SALIM V.S.
SRI.SHANAVAS.S
SHRI.K.MUHAMMED THOYYIB
SRI.M.M.ANSAR
SMT.A.M.FOUSI
SHRI.GENTLE C.D.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 001.
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (D.M.).,
FOR PARAVUR TALUK, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 030.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER.,
KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.,
PIN - 683 110.
W.P.(C) No.38032 of 2025
2025:KER:77253
-2-
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683 110.
GP SMT DEEPA V
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.38032 of 2025
2025:KER:77253
-3-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 38032 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 the Exhibit P4.
ii) Direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Exhibit P2 (Form-5)
submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and
Wetland Rules, 2008 and pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
iii) To dispense with the production of translations of Exhibits P1, P2
and P4 in vernacular language.
iv) Grant such other relief, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit in the interest of justice."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order
passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting Ext.P2 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.
2025:KER:77253
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
2025:KER:77253
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.P4 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,
2025:KER:77253
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:77253
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38032/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
07.10.2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE FORM-5
APPLICATION DATED 06.08.2022 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
01.03.2023 IN WP(C) 6486/2023 OF THIS
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 REJECTION ORDER
DATED 11.08.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
