Kerala High Court
Anjana Vincent vs State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:77608
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. 17051 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ANJANA VINCENT,
AGED 26 YEARS,
D/O.VINCENT, PALLIPPAT THOUSE, VALLAKKUNNU DESOM,
KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN: 680 683 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER VINCENT, AGED 56, S/O.ANTONY,
PALLIPPAT HOUSE, VALLAKKUNNU DESOM, KALLETTUMKARA
VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 683.
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.L.BITTO
SMT.MITHUL T ANTO
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695 001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION AYYANTHOLE. P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 003.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE, CIVIL
STATION, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 125.
W.P.(C) No.17051 of 2024
2025:KER:77608
-2-
4 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
ALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALLETTUMKARA. P.O.,
REP BY CONVENER (AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI
BHAVAN, ALOOR, THAZHEKKAD P.O.) THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 683.
GP SMT DEVISREE
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.17051 of 2024
2025:KER:77608
-3-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 17051 of 2024
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2025.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Call for the report leading to Ext-P5 and issue writ of
certiorari quashing the same, in the interest of justice.
ii) Direct the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders the
Ext-23, Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner in a time
frame, considering the fact that the property is a converted land
before 2007 which is evident by Ext-P4 KSREC Report in favour of
the petitioner,
iii) To permit the petitioner to file the writ petition without
translation of vernacular documents,
AND
iv) Further orders as the petitioner may seek and this
Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order
passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting Ext.P3 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
2025:KER:77608
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
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],
2025:KER:77608
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.P5 order is set aside and remanded.
2. The 3rd 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
2025:KER:77608
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
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:77608
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17051/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING
NO.383 OF 2017 OF THE KALLETTUMKARA SRO
DATED 01/03/2017.
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL08060701568 ISSUED FROM THE
KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE OFFICE DATED
06/05/2023.
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION
NO.29/2022/953868 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
RDO, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 22/04/2022.
Exhibit-P4 A COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT ISSUED FROM
THE OFFICE OF 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
13/10/2019.
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20/01/2023.
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE ATTESTED COPY OF THE POWER OF
ATTORNEY NO.9 OF 2023 OF THE
KALLETTUMKARA SRO DATED 12/01/2023.
