Saturday, 16, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shafeek Othalakattil vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 2715 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2715 Ker
Judgement Date : 8 April, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Shafeek Othalakattil vs State Of Kerala on 8 April, 2026

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 13426 OF 2026               1




                                                     2026:KER:31652
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1948

                          WP(C) NO. 13426 OF 2026

PETITIONER/S:
          SHAFEEK OTHALAKATTIL
          AGED 44 YEARS
          S/O ABDULLA OTHALAKATTIL, OTHALAKATTIL HOUSE,
          VATTUNGA PARAMBU, PONNANI P.O., MALAPPURAM DT., PIN
          - 679577

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI
               SMT.T.RASINI
               SMT.ADHEELA NOWRIN
               SMT.HIBA SHAMAR
               SMT.ALEENA VINOY
RESPONDENT/S:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
               REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT., PIN - 695001

      2        REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
               2THE OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
               TRIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DT., PIN - 676101

      3        THE VILLAGE OFFICER
               EZHUVATHIRUTHI VILLAGE OFFICE, PONNANI SOUTH,
               MALAPPURAM DT., PIN - 679586

      4        THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
               KRISHI BHAVAN, EZHUVATHIRUTHI, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM
               DT., PIN - 679577
 WP(C) NO. 13426 OF 2026                      2




                                                                    2026:KER:31652

      5        THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
               TALUK OFFICE, PONNANI NAGARAM P.O., MALAPPURAM
               DT., PIN - 679583

      6        KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
               REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VIKAS BHAVAN,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT., PIN - 695033



OTHER PRESENT:

               GP SMT DEEPA V


       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   08.04.2026,          THE   COURT   ON       THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 13426 OF 2026                3




                                                          2026:KER:31652




                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    --------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) No. 13426 of 2026
                    --------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 8th day of April, 2026



                               JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

reliefs:

"(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing Exhibit P4 order issued by the 2nd respondent.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other order or direction directing the 2nd respondent or any other competent officer to call for a report from the 6th respondent KSREC regarding the lie and nature of the property.

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to re-consider and dispose of the application submitted by the Petitioner in form-

5, with due consideration to KSREC report, within a time frame as may be prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.

(iv) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of translation of the vernacular documents produced in the Writ Petition.

2026:KER:31652

(v) To issue any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. "[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

2026:KER:31652 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

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

2026:KER:31652 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 Form - 5 application in

accordance with the law. The 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

2026:KER:31652 production of a copy of this judgment by the

petitioner.

4. If the authorised officer is either dismissing or

allowing the petition, a speaking order as directed

by this court in Vinumon v. District Collector

[2025 (6) KLT 275] shall be passed.

sd/-

                                            P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
                                                   JUDGE
SKS


     Judgment reserved        NA
      Date of Judgment     08/04/2026
      Judgment dictated    08/04/2026
  Draft judgment placed    08/04/2026

Final judgment uploaded 08/04/2026

2026:KER:31652

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 13426 OF 2026

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2024-2025 DATED 31-05-2024 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.

KL10030307255/2024 DATED 10-07-2024 ISSUED FOR THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED IN FORM-5 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04-07-2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

 
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 : IJJ

 

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

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter