Kerala High Court
Chelery Vinod vs The District Collector on 10 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:67032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 19TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 24936 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
CHELERY VINOD,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. KUNJIKANNAN,'ACHU NIVAS',
CHAVASSERY VILLAGE, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SIJU
SHRI.S.ABHILASH
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
SMT. MARIYA JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN - 670101
3 PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
REVENUE TOWER, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
4 IRITTY MUNICIPALITY,
PUNNAD P.O, PUNNAD, KANNUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 670703
BY ADV SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER- SMT JESSY S SALIM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.24936 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:67032
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2025
The petitioner is the owner in possession of
3.24 Ares of land comprised in Survey No. 139/162 in
Chavassery Village, Thalassery Taluk. The petitioner
has constructed a building in the said property and is
residing there with his family. The property has been
classified as 'Nilam' in the title deeds, although the
same was converted years back. There is no paddy
cultivation in and around the property for the last 40
years. The petitioner submitted an application for a
building permit to Keezhoor Chavassery Grama
Panchayat and constructed a house in the said
property. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application
in the Form 1 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and the Rules framed
thereunder ('Act' and 'Rules', for brevity) before the
Local Level Monitoring Committee ('LLMC', for short),
seeking permission to construct the said house. During
2025:KER:67032
the pendency of the Ext. P2 application, the Panchayat
got merged with the fourth respondent Municipality.
Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application
for regularisation of the construction. But, by Ext. P3
communication, it was informed that no application is
pending before the Municipality. Consequently, the
petitioner submitted an application to assign a building
number to his residential building. By Ext. P4
communication, the fourth respondent directed the
petitioner to produce the documents showing the
classification of the property in the revenue records.
After that, the above application was dismissed.
Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application in
Form 5 under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules before the
second respondent to exclude the property from the
data bank. Then, the petitioner was handed over Ext.
P6 communication dated 27.12.2021 stating that the
first respondent had passed an order in 2015 under
Section 13 of the Act to restore the property to its
2025:KER:67032
original position. After much effort, the petitioner
received Ext. P7 order dated 27.06.2015 passed under
Section 13 of the Act. The petitioner's property does
not fall within the purview of the Act. The petitioner's
application in Form 5 was dismissed principally on the
ground that Ext. P7 order was passed against him. In
Devanand vs. State of Kerala (2023 (1) KLT 1106),
this Court has held that there is no bar in considering a
Form 5 application even after an order under Section
13 is passed. In view of the law laid down in
Devanand's case (supra), the petitioner had submitted
Ext. P8 application in Form 5 again before the second
respondent; the same has not been considered. Hence,
the writ petition.
2. In the statement filed by the first respondent,
inter alia, it is contended that, the petitioner had
submitted a Form 5 application on 14.09.2020. In the
site inspection that was conducted by the Sub Collector,
it was noticed that the petitioner had already
2025:KER:67032
constructed a two storied building in 2015 in the said
property. By Ext. P7 order, the District Collector had
directed the petitioner to restore the property to its
original position. Immediately, the petitioner preferred
Ext. P8 application. Even though a report from the
Agricultural Officer was called for, the same has not
been received. But the Sub Collector, Thalassery, has
filed a report stating that there is a recommendation to
take further action under Section 13 of the Act. In view
of the said report, the petitioner's application cannot be
considered. A notice was issued to the petitioner to
restore the property to its original position within 15
days from 27.06.2015. Hence, the writ petition may be
dismissed.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that, in view of the law laid down in the Devanand's
case (supra), there is no legal bar for the second
2025:KER:67032
respondent in considering Ext. P8 application submitted
by the petitioner.
5. The above submission is stoutly resisted by the
learned Government Pleader, who submits that since
Ext. P7 order passed under Section 13 of the Act has
attained finality and the petitioner's earlier application in
Form 5 was already rejected, the petitioner is estopped
from filing a fresh application in Form 5 because the said
findings operate as res judicata against the petitioner.
Therefore, the ratio in Devanand's case (supra) has no
application to the facts of the case.
6. It is not in dispute that, by Ext. P7 order dated
27.06.2015, the first respondent had directed the
petitioner to restore the property back to its original
position under Section 13 of the Act. The petitioner has
not challenged the said order, and the same has attained
finality. Similarly, the petitioner's earlier Form 5
application was also rejected, and the same is also not
challenged. It is after suffering the above orders that the
2025:KER:67032
petitioner has filed Ext. P8 application, a fresh Form 5
application, to exclude the property from the data bank,
not-withstanding the findings in the above orders.
7. In Devanand's case (supra), this Court has held
that, even if an order is passed under Section 13 of the
Act, the same would not be a bar for the authorised
officer to consider a Form 5 application. In any given
case, this Court has not held that, even if an order is
passed under Section 13 of the Act and a Form 5
application is already rejected, the applicant can file a
fresh application. Therefore, the principles in the above
decision do not apply to the facts of the present case.
8. On an overall consideration of the facts,
especially that the petitioner has already suffered an
order under Section 13 of the Act and his Form 5
application has been rejected, and the same have
attained finality, I am of the definite view that the
petitioner cannot file a fresh Form 5 application in
respect of the same cause of action.
2025:KER:67032
In the above conspectus, I dismiss the writ petition,
but by reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge
Ext. P7 order and the order rejecting the petitioner's
earlier Form 5 application.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/10.09.2025
2025:KER:67032
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24936/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONER'S RESIDENCE AND SURROUNDINGS
EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF APPLICATION AND THE AFFIDAVIT
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF
KEEZHOOR CHAVASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT ALONG
WITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 4.8.2014
EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED
29.07.2021 RECEIVED FROM THE 4TH
RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY
EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED
30.09.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED
13.07.2022 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 THE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED
27.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 THE COPY OF ORDER VIDE NO.LF/1258/2015
DATED 27.6.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 THE COPY OF FORM NO.5 APPLICATION DATED
18.6.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
