Kerala High Court
Fathima K V vs The District Collector on 21 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 31093 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:78057
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. 31093 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
FATHIMA K V,
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN KHADEEJA MANZIL,CHIDANGAL,
CHERUKUNNU P O, KANNUR-, PIN - 670301
BY ADVS.
SRI.I.V.PRAMOD
SMT.AMRUTHA DIWAKAR
SMT.RESMI SAJEEVAN
SMT.AVANI P.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, CALTEX JUNCTION, KANNUR HO, KANNUR -,
PIN - 670001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE REVENUE TOWER, COURT
ROAD, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670141
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
KANNUR TALUK OFFICE NEAR GANDHI CIRCLE, SOUTH BAZAR,
KANNUR-, PIN - 670002
WP(C) NO. 31093 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:78057
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE KANNAPURAM PILATHARA-PAPPINISSERY
ROAD, KANNAPURAM, CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR, PIN - 670301
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KANNAPURAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670301
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT PREETHA K.K
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. 31093 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:78057
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.31093 of 2025
---------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i) To call for the records leading to issuance of Exhibit
P3 rejection order issued by the 2 nd respondent and
issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the records leading to ext.
P3 rejection order and quash the same;
ii) Declare that Ext. P3 is legally and unsustainable;
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ or order directing the 2 nd respondent to reconsider
the application of the petitioner in the interest of
justice,
iv) To dispense with filing of the translation of
vernacular documents; And
v) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this
Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of this case." (SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed
by the 2nd respondent, by which an application submitted by
WP(C) NO. 31093 OF 2025
2025:KER:78057
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
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.
5. This Court This Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v.
WP(C) NO. 31093 OF 2025
2025:KER:78057
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.P3 order is set aside.
b) The 2nd 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
WP(C) NO. 31093 OF 2025
2025:KER:78057
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. 31093 OF 2025
2025:KER:78057
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31093/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL13023004491/2025 DATED 26.05.2025
ISSUED FROM THE KANNAPURAM VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER DATED 15.08.2023
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 09.02.2024
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER AND THE NEARBY
RESIDENTIAL HOUSES
