Kerala High Court
Ramani Chandran vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 21 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 38749 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:78166
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. 38749 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
RAMANI CHANDRAN
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O CHANDRAN, KARALATHUKARAN HOUSE, PESHKAR ROAD,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR -, PIN - 680121
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SMT.POOJA SUNIL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680125
3 VILLAGE OFFICER
MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, IRINJALAKUDA.P.O, THRISSUR
DISTRICT -, PIN - 680121
WP(C) NO. 38749 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:78166
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT DEEPA V
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. 38749 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:78166
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 38749 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"i. call for records leading to P6 and issue a writ in
the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P6
ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders
on Ext.P5 within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble
Court after following the procedure prescribed under Rule
4(4) (d), (e) & (A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and
Wetland Rules and after ensuring that only if it is found that
the land is fit for paddy cultivation that the land included in
the data bank.
iii. issue such other orders, writs or directions as are
deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.
iv. award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.
v. dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular
2025:KER:78166
documents produced as Exhibits in the writ petition." [SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order
passed by the 1st respondent rejecting Form - 5 application
submitted by her under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules', for brevity). The
main grievance of the petitioner is that the authorised
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
2025:KER:78166
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], 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.
2025:KER:78166
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the
following manner:
1. Ext.P6 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P5 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, if not already
called for.
3. 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
2025:KER:78166
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
SKS
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
2025:KER:78166
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38749/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED
21.01.2025
Exhibit P2 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PRESENT STATE OF
AFFAIRS OF PETITIONER'S LAND
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE
OFFICER DATED 26.07.2021
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUTATION DATED
14.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
18.01.2025
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED
19.09.2025
