Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Haris A K vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 9989 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9989 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 October, 2025

Kerala High Court

Haris A K vs State Of Kerala on 23 October, 2025

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
                                              2025:KER:78709
WP(C) NO. 38937 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. 38937 OF 2025

PETITIONER/S:

         HARIS A K
         AGED 40 YEARS
         S/O ANDIKADAN ABOO, ANDIKADAN HOUSE, JISHA NIVAS,
         PUNNAPALA P O, PUNNAPALA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679328

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.BIJITH S.KHAN
         SHRI.RAJESH O.N.
         SHRI.AMEER SALIM


RESPONDENT/S:

    1    STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE
         DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
         695001

    2    THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
         DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE, COLLECTORATE, U P HILL,
         MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505

    3    SUB COLLECTOR
         MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE, U P HILL, MALAPPURAM,
         PIN - 676505

    4    REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
         REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MALAPPURAM
         COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
         PIN - 676505
                                                          2025:KER:78709
WP(C) NO. 38937 OF 2025

                                  2



     5     VILLAGE OFFICER
           WANDOOR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679328

     6     THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
           KRISHIBHAVAN, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
           679328

     7     THE DIRECTOR
           KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
           CENTRE, C BLOCK, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
           PIN - 695033



OTHER PRESENT:

           SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   23.10.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                        2025:KER:78709
WP(C) NO. 38937 OF 2025

                                  3




                   P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                    --------------------------------
                  W.P.(C.).No.38937 of 2025
             ----------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2025


                           JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. To call for the records leading to Ext. P4 and set aside the same, and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to reconsider the Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5 of the Kerala Conversion of Paddy and Wet Land Rules, 2008 in respect of the land comprised in Ext.P1 and remove the petitioner's property from data bank.

ii. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get conversion of the nature of land as per the Kerala Conversion of Paddy and Wet Land Rules, 2008. iii. Exempt the petitioner from producing the English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with this Writ Petition and the petitioner further undertakes that she is ready and willing to produce iv. Issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case; (SIC) 2025:KER:78709 WP(C) NO. 38937 OF 2025

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the

4th 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

considered whether the exclusion of the property would 2025:KER:78709 WP(C) NO. 38937 OF 2025

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 4th respondent/authorised officer is directed

to reconsider Ext.P2 Form - 5 application in

accordance with the law. The authorised officer

shall either conduct a personal inspection of the 2025:KER:78709 WP(C) NO. 38937 OF 2025

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:78709 WP(C) NO. 38937 OF 2025

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38937/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEARS 2025-2026 DATED 01.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT HAVING NO. 2/2024/19663 DATED 04.12.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT HAVING NO.

A-722/2025/RELIS/3622/25/KSREC DATED 05.07.2025 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT HAVING NO. 89/2025 DATED 14.10.2025

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter