Kerala High Court
Ramesh vs The Deputy Collector (Rr) on 22 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 17853 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:78481
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 30TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 17853 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RAMESH,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O MANI, 4/45,PARAMEL HOUSE,THRIKKUR P.O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680306
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SRI.SREEJITH SREENATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND
ACT,2008 (EXERCISING THE POWERS OF THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER UNDER THE SAID ACT),
COLLECTORATE,CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN,AVANUR P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
680541
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
AVANUR VILLAGE,AVANUR P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
WP(C) NO. 17853 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:78481
680541
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17853 OF 2025
3
2025:KER:78481
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.17853 of 2025
---------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate
Writs, Orders or directions to call for the records
leading to Exhibit P-5 decision of the 1st respondent
and to quash the same;
ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
Writs, Orders or directions, commanding the 1st
respondent to reconsider the application preferred in
Form No.5 and to exclude the property from the data
bank as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a
time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the
interest of justice;
iii. To dispense with the production of English
Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with
the Writ Petition in the interest of justice;
iv. Render such other orders 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.P5 order passed
WP(C) NO. 17853 OF 2025
2025:KER:78481
st
by the 1 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
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.
WP(C) NO. 17853 OF 2025
2025:KER:78481
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.P5 order is set aside.
b) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P4 Form 5 application
submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.
WP(C) NO. 17853 OF 2025
2025:KER:78481
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 22/10/25
Judgment dictated 22/10/25
Draft Judgment placed 22/10/25
Final Judgment uploaded 23/10/25
WP(C) NO. 17853 OF 2025
2025:KER:78481
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17853/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.819/2011 DATED 18-03-
2011 OF S.R.O. MUNDUR
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 31-05-
2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED
DATA BANK FOR AVANUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT PUBLISHED
IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 14-01-2021
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.5
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 07-11-2024
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.950/2025 DATED 26-02-2025
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
