Kerala High Court
N.E.Pookoya vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 28766 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:79182
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. 28766 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
N.E.POOKOYA
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.IMBICHI KOYA, NAREKKATTIL HOUSE, PUDUPPARIYARAM
-2 VILLAGE, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN -
678731
BY ADVS.
SHRI.B.MOHANLAL
SMT.P.S.PREETHA
SHRI.ASWIN V. NAIR
SHRI.KARTHIK J SEKHAR
SHRI.MOTTY JIBY VASUDEVAN
SHRI.ABIJITH M.
SMT. AVANI NAIR
SMT.JAYAPRABHA ARJUN
SMT.PRAVEENA T.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
WP(C) NO. 28766 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:79182
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
3 THE SUB COLLECTOR (REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER)
COLLECTORATE, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
4 THE TAHASILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION COMPLEX, PALAKKAD, PIN
- 678001
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PUDUPPARIYARAM-II VILLAGE, PUDUPPARIYARAM,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678009
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, PUDUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD, (CONVENER,
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE KERALA PADDY AND WET LAND ACT
2008), PIN - 678009
7 THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT JESSY S SALIM
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. 28766 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:79182
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 28766 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P6 from the
Respondents and issue a writ of certiorari or other
appropriate, writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P6 and the
orders of the Respondents wrongly including the reclaimed
2.33 Ares of land comprised in Re-Sy.No:411/32 and 411/33
in Block No.21 of Puduppariyaram-II Village in the Data Bank
and thereby declining to correct the entries contained in the
Data Bank.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the
Respondents to allow the application submitted by the
petitioner in Form-5 in Rule (4d) of the Kerala Conservation
of Paddy and Wet Land Rules, 2008 to the extent in respect
of 2.33 Ares of land comprised in Re-Sy.No:411/32 and
411/33 in Block No.21 of Puduppariyaram-II Village after
physically verifying the property and ground realities and to
2025:KER:79182
obtain reports from the 7th KSREC and correct the entries
contained in the Data Bank within a stipulated time as
directed by this Hon'ble Court taking into consideration of
Exhibit P5.
(iii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get allow
the application in Form-5 in Rule (4d) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Rules, 2008 to the
extent in respect of 2.33 Ares of land comprised in Re-
Sy.No:411/32 and 411/33 in Block No.21 of Puduppariyaram-
II Village after physically verifying the property and ground
realities and to obtain reports from the 7th KSREC and
correct the entries contained in the Data Bank taking into
consideration of Exhibit P5.
(iv) To dispense with the translation of the documents
produced in the Vernacular Language.
(v) To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order
passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting Form - 5 application
submitted by him 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.
2025:KER:79182
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
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
2025:KER:79182
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:
1. Ext.P6 order is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Form - 5 application in
accordance with law. The authorised officer
2025:KER:79182
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 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
2025:KER:79182
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 22/10/25
Judgment dictated 22/10/25
Draft judgment placed 24/10/25
Final judgment uploaded 24/10/25
2025:KER:79182
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28766/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO:1141/2024 OF OLAVAKODE SUB REGISTRY
DATED 20/5/2024
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX REMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 23/7/2025 FOR THE
PERIOD 2025-26
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE NO.86301702 DATED 18/6/2024
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.M-
3427/07 DATED 24/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO SRI.RAMAKRISHNAN
Exhibit P5 THE PHOTOGRAPH AND GROUND REALITIES OF
THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN FILE
NO.1299/2025 DATED 13/6/2025 IN
APPLICATION NO.38/2024/13594 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
