Kerala High Court
K.S. Narayana Swamy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 21 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 31005 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:77976
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 29TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 31005 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
K.S. NARAYANA SWAMY
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O SIVARAMAKRISHNA IYER, GANGOTHRI, KUNNATH LANE
THIRUVAMPADY P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680022
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASOK KUMAR K.P.
SHRI.ABDUL HAMEED RAFI
SHRI.RAKESH S MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
THRISSUR FIRST FLOOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680003
2 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE RECOVERY) THRISSUR
AND RDO FOR THRISSUR TALUK
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, PIN -
680003
3 THE LLMC FOR THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENOR AND AGRICULTRAL OFFICER,
AYYANTHOLE, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN
WP(C) NO. 31005 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:77976
- 680003
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
AYYANTHOLE, KRISHI BHAVAN, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT PREETHA K.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 31005 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:77976
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.31005 of 2025
---------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i) Declare that Exhibit P-7 Order is against law,
arbitrary and per se illegal;
ii) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P-7 order of
rejection of Ext.P-6 Form 5 application by the 2nd
Respondent and issue a Writ of certiorari or such other
appropriate Writ, orders or directions quashing the
same;
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or
order or direction to the 2nd respondent to allow Ext.P-
6 application relying on the observation that the
petitioner's land is not cultivable with paddy within a
time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the
interest of justice;
iv) To dispense with the production of English
Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with
the Writ Petition in the interest of justice;
v) Render such other orders or directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit, proper and
necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case."
(SIC)
WP(C) NO. 31005 OF 2025
2025:KER:77976
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order passed
by the 2nd respondent, by which an application submitted by
the petitioner under Form 5 in accordance to the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008,
(for short, the Act and the Rules) is rejected.
3. Heard the learned counsel 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
WP(C) NO. 31005 OF 2025
2025:KER:77976
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.
5. This Court 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 following
manner:
a) Ext.P7 order is set aside.
b) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
WP(C) NO. 31005 OF 2025
2025:KER:77976
directed to reconsider Ext.P6 Form 5 application
submitted by the petitioner 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.
c) 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 receipt of a certified copy
of this judgment by the petitioner.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 21/10/25
Judgment dictated 21/10/25
Draft Judgment placed 21/10/25
Final Judgment uploaded 22/10/25
WP(C) NO. 31005 OF 2025
2025:KER:77976
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31005/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 2717/1998
DATED 29.06.1998 OF SRO, AYYANTHOLE
EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL08017401815/2023 DATED 10.04.2023
EXHIBIT P-3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA
BANK NOTIFIED AS DW4/1640/II VOL 2 DATED
22.01.2021
EXHIBIT P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER NO. 12320/95/D1
DATED 15.12.1995 WITH TYPED COPY
EXHIBIT P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER NO. K.DIS
12318/95/D1 DATED 15.12.1995 WITH TYPED
COPY
EXHIBIT P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
21.09.2023
EXHIBIT P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.
2805/2025 DATED 30.06.2025
EXHIBIT P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND
