Kerala High Court
Pradeep K.U vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:71273
WP(C) NO. 10890 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 10890 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PRADEEP K.U.,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O NARAYANA PODUVAL, CHITHIRA HOUSE, PAYYANUR
TALUK, PAYYANUR DESOM, PAYYANUR P.O, NEAR S.S
TEMPLE EAST NADA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN
SRI.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN
SHRI.LIBIN VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
TALIPARAMBA, MINI CIVIL STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670141
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
PAYYANNUR VILLAGE, CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, MAIN
ROAD, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:71273
WP(C) NO. 10890 OF 2025
2
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P7 order
and direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P5
application submitted by the petitioner in Form 6 under
Section 27A read with Rule 12(1) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules,
2008 ('Act and Rules' in short).
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of
0.0243 hectares and 0.0115 hectares of land comprised
in Re-survey Nos. 108/142 and 108/151, respectively, in
Payyannur Village, Kannur District, covered under Ext.P2
land tax receipt. The property is a converted land.
However, the respondents have erroneously classified the
same as 'Nilam' in the revenue records. To change the
nature of the property in the revenue records, the
petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 application in Form 6.
However, by Ext.P7 order, the authorised officer has
2025:KER:71273
WP(C) NO. 10890 OF 2025
rejected the application on the ground that the applied
property was erroneously excluded from the data bank.
The authorised officer has not considered Ext.P5
application in its proper perspective as per the mandate
under the Act and Rules. Hence, Ext.P7 order is illegal
and arbitrary.
3. In the statement filed by the 2 nd respondent it is
contended that on receipt of Ext.P5 application, the report
was called for from the Village Officer. The Village
Officer after conducting a site inspection found that the
applied property was not reclaimed before 2008 and it is
water-logged. The petitioner has an alternative statutory
remedy by filing an appeal before the District Collector
under Section 27B of the Act. The property was
inadvertently excluded from the data bank due to
oversight, which is clearly mentioned in the impugned
order. As thousands of applications are received, it is not
practicable to hear all the applicants in each case. The
applications have been processed through online. There
2025:KER:71273
WP(C) NO. 10890 OF 2025
is no illegality in Ext.P7 order.
4 Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
5. A reading of Ext.P7 impugned order
substantiates that the authorised officer has not
considered the application as per the mandate under
Section 27A and Rule 12(1) of the Rules. The authorised
officer was obliged to consider whether the allowing of
the application would cause any disruption to the free
flow of the water to the neighbouring paddy fields, if any,
and the water conservancy measures. In the case at hand,
the authorised officer has rejected the application solely
on the ground that the petitioner's property was
erroneously excluded from the data bank. The authorised
officer has not rendered any independent finding
regarding the parameters laid down in the Act and Rules.
Therefore, I am satisfied that Ext.P7 order has been
passed without any application of mind and without
following the procedure under the Act and Rules. In the
2025:KER:71273
WP(C) NO. 10890 OF 2025
aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ petition by
quashing Ext.P7 order and directing the 2nd respondent/
authorised officer to reconsider Ext.P5 application, in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within 60 days from the date of production of a
copy of this judgment. The authorised officer shall
reconsider the application as per the procedure
prescribed under the Act and Rules.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm24/9/2025
2025:KER:71273
WP(C) NO. 10890 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10890/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DATED
02.09.2021 EXECUTED BY THE FATHER OF THE
PETITIONER TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
02.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 18.11.2023 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF
THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION
DATED 29.12.2023 PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FILE NOTES DATED
01.01.2024 GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER FROM
THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
08.11.2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
HEREIN REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER
