Kerala High Court
Rajula .K, D/O.Abdu vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 21 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 32192 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:78209
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. 32192 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
RAJULA .K, D/O.ABDU,
AGED 28 YEARS
KAYAKKALIPARAMBIL, PARAMBIL .P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673012
BY ADVS.
SHRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN
SMT.M.P.SEETHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KURUVATTOOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673611
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, KURUVATTOOR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673611
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT JESSY S. SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 32192 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:78209
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.32192 of 2024
---------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction quashing Ext-P2 order passed
by the 1st respondent.
ii) To declare that Ext-P2 order is illegal, arbitrary and
unconstitutional.
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
respondents to exclude the petitioner's property from
the data bank under the provisions of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.
iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
respondents to change the classification of the
petitioner's property in the revenue records to
'purayidam'.
v) To issue any other writ, order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
vi) Petitioner also prays that this Hon'ble Court may be
WP(C) NO. 32192 OF 2024
2025:KER:78209
pleased to dispense with the translation of the
documents produced in the Vernacular Language.
case." (SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed
by the 1st 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
WP(C) NO. 32192 OF 2024
2025:KER:78209
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 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:
WP(C) NO. 32192 OF 2024
2025:KER:78209
a) Ext.P2 order is set aside.
b) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider 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. 32192 OF 2024
2025:KER:78209
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32192/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
03/02/2021.
EXHIBIT-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
13/03/2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT-P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT-P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
