Kerala High Court
Pradeep C.D vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 21 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 19250 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:78000
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. 19250 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PRADEEP C.D
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. V.K DIVAKARAN, PRASANTH NIVAS,MUNDOOR
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678592
BY ADVS.
SMT.C.K.SHERIN
SMT.BLESSY MARY SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KB JACOB ROAD, FORT
COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR(R R)
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682030
3 VILLAGE OFFICER
CHERANALLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682027
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, CHERANALLOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682034
WP(C) NO. 19250 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:78000
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. 19250 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:78000
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.19250 of 2025
---------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"a) call for the records leading to Exhibit P6 and
quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or
other appropriate writ, order or direction;
b) declare that the property mentioned in Ext. P6 is
not paddy lands as defined under section 2(XII) of
the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act
and is liable to be excluded from the data bank and
direct the 2nd respondent to remove the property
from data bank;
c) to direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider Form 5
application after considering all the relevant
materials and with the report of the KSREC.
d) to dispense with the filing of the translation of
vernacular documents. e) issue such other writ,
order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case." (SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order
passed by the 2nd respondent, by which an application
WP(C) NO. 19250 OF 2025
2025:KER:78000
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 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. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
WP(C) NO. 19250 OF 2025
2025:KER:78000
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.P6 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 inspection of the property or,
alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in
WP(C) NO. 19250 OF 2025
2025:KER:78000
accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the
cost of the petitioner, if not already called for.
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.
d) While considering the Form 5
application, the authorised officer will also
consider the dictum laid down by this Court in
Line Properties Private Limited vs.
Revenue Divisional Officer and others,
Ernakulam (2025 (2) KLT 348).
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 21/10/25
Judgment dictated 21/10/25
Draft Judgment placed 22/10/25
Final Judgment uploaded 22/10/25
WP(C) NO. 19250 OF 2025
2025:KER:78000
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19250/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT -P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
4423/I/2008 DATED 30.10.2008
EXHIBIT -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
08.05.2024 FOR THE PERIOD 2024-2025
ISSUED BY THE CHERANALLOOR VILLAGE
OFFICER
EXHIBIT -P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATA BANK PUBLISHED ON 23/02/2012
EXHIBIT -P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM
NO. 5 DATED 05.07.2024
EXHIBIT -P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
02/09/2024 IN W.P.(C) NO. 26888/2024
EXHIBIT -P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEARING NO. 906/2025 DATED
06/04/2025
EXHIBIT -P7 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT NO.
A172/2015/KSREC/001580/25 DATED
04/04/2025
