Kerala High Court
Unnikrishnan vs The District Collector on 21 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 31088 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:77996
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. 31088 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
UNNIKRISHNAN
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, ANAYIDETHU HOUSE, KAITHA
SOUTH, CHETTIKULANGARA P.O., KANNAMANGALAM,
ALAPPZUHA, PIN - 690106
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
1ST FLOOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
CHENGANNUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA -
KOZHENCHERY ROAD, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
689121
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
1ST FLOOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
4 THE TAHSILDAR
MAVELIKKARA TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA,
WP(C) NO. 31088 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:77996
PIN - 690101
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, THATTARAMBALAM P.O.,
KANNAMANGALAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690103
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
CHETTIKULANGARA KRISHI BHAVAN, CHETTIKULANGARA,
PERUNGALA, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690106
7 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT JESSY S.SALIM
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. 31088 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:77996
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.31088 of 2025
---------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records
leading to Ext P2 order and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction directing the 2nd respondent or the officer
authorized under section 2(XVA) of the Act to
reconsider Form 5 application and pass orders afresh
after obtaining a report from the 7th respondent,
KSREC with regard to the nature of the property as on
2008.
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 7th
respondent to file a report before the 2nd respondent
or the officer authorized under section 2(XVA) of the
Act and 6th respondent with regard to nature and lie
of the petitioner's property in 2008.
iv. To dispense with the filing of translation of
vernacular documents.
v. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this
Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case." (SIC)
WP(C) NO. 31088 OF 2025
2025:KER:77996
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 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. 31088 OF 2025
2025:KER:77996
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.P2 order is set aside.
b) The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
WP(C) NO. 31088 OF 2025
2025:KER:77996
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. 31088 OF 2025
2025:KER:77996
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31088/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
28.05.2025
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B-9660/2022
DATED 16.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
