Kerala High Court
Vinod M vs State Of Kerala on 23 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:78707
WP(C) NO. 38932 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 38932 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
VINOD M
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O CHOYI, THAZATHE PEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE,
KALIYATTAMUKKU, MOONNIYUR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676311
BY ADVS. SHRI.RAHUL RAJ P.
SRI.KIRAN NARAYANAN
SMT.MEERA R. MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
TIRUR, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 676101
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN,MOONIYUR, ,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673635
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MOONIYUR, VILLAGE OFFICE, PALAKKAL MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676317
2025:KER:78707
WP(C) NO. 38932 OF 2025
2
5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:78707
WP(C) NO. 38932 OF 2025
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.38932 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Call for the records leading to the issuance of
Exhibit P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction commanding the 2 nd
Respondent to reconsider Exhibit P4 Form 5
application submitted by the Petitioner for removal
of the subject land from the Data Bank, after
conducting a proper and independent enquiry, in
accordance with the provisions of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008
and the Rules framed thereunder;
iii. Direct the 2nd Respondent to obtain a report from
the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment
Centre (KSRSEC) to ascertain the exact nature and
classification of the land as on 12.08.2008, the date
of coming into force of the Act, before disposing of
the Form 5 application afresh
2025:KER:78707
WP(C) NO. 38932 OF 2025
iv. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
(SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the
2nd respondent rejecting the 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.
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 with the statutory requirements. The impugned order
was 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
2025:KER:78707
WP(C) NO. 38932 OF 2025
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.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following
manner:
1. Ext.P4 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 Form - 5
application in accordance with the law. The
2025:KER:78707
WP(C) NO. 38932 OF 2025
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 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
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 23.10.2025
Judgment dictated 23.10.2025
Draft Judgment placed 23.10.2025
Final Judgment 24.10.2025
uploaded
2025:KER:78707
WP(C) NO. 38932 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38932/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING
DOCUMENT NO. 1821
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX RECEIPT
DATED 16.04.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DOCUMENT DATED 01.11.2022
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
20.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
LAND WITH FULLY GROWN COCONUT TREES AND
OTHER VEGETATION
