[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sheriff vs The District Collector on 2 February, 2026
W.P.(C) Nos.31945 of 2022 and 32172 of 2022 1
2026:KER:8746
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 13TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 31945 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SHERIFF, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. HYDROSE, ETTUKATTIL HOUSE,
EDATHALA, ERNAKULAM -683564.
BY ADV SRI.V.A.VINOD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM- 682030.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM -682001.
3 THE TAHASILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683101.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ALUVA EAST VILLAGE OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM -683563.
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
EDATHALA KRISHI BHAVAN, EDATHALA, ERNAKULAM -683564.
GP SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).32172/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.31945 of 2022 and 32172 of 2022 2
2026:KER:8746
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 13TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 32172 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SHERIFF, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. HYDROSE, ETTUKATTIL HOUSE,
EDATHALA, ERNAKULAM 683564.
BY ADV SRI.V.A.VINOD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM- 682030.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM -682001.
3 THE TAHASILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683101.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ALUVA EAST VILLAGE OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM 683563.
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
EDATHALA, KRISHI BHAVAN, EDATHALA, ERNAKULAM 683564.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY,GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C).31945/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.31945 of 2022 and 32172 of 2022 3
2026:KER:8746
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P.(C) Nos.31945 of 2022 and 32172 of 2022
.................................................................
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, who is common, has approached this Court
challenging Ext.P6 order in both the writ petitions, whereby the Form 5
applications submitted by the petitioner have been rejected by the 2 nd
respondent solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer.
2. Petitioner is in ownership of different extent of
properties comprised in various survey numbers in block No.35 of Aluva
East Village in Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam. Petitioner contends that Ext.P6
order in both the writ petitions were issued without following the
procedures prescribed under the Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government
Pleader submits that it is true that the decision has been taken solely on
the basis of the report of the Agricultural Officer, but that report is based
on the KSRSEC report.
4. This Court in Salim C.K. and Another v. State of
Kerala and Others [2017 (1) KHC 394] has held that the Data Bank
that was contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain
W.P.(C) Nos.31945 of 2022 and 32172 of 2022 4
2026:KER:8746
details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of
jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. Further, in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala
[2020 (5) KHC 490] has held that the data bank to be prepared under
the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the
date of coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In Joy v.
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector [2021 (1) KLT 433] it was
held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on
12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the data
bank. This Court in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of
Kerala [2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222] has held that the most relevant
aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in
question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into
force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue
Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to
have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained
from KSRSEC. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue
Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270] has held that when the petitioner
seeks removal of his land from the data bank, it will not be sufficient for
the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating
that the LLMC has decided not to remove the land from data bank. The
Revenue Divisional Officer being the competent authority, has to
independently assess the status of the land and come to a conclusion
W.P.(C) Nos.31945 of 2022 and 32172 of 2022 5
2026:KER:8746
that removal of the land from data bank will adversely affect paddy
cultivation in the land in question or in the nearby paddy lands or that it
will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands in the area and in the
absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable. Further,
this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023
(5) KLT 432] has held that the predominant factor for consideration
while considering Form-5 application should be whether the land which
is sought to be excluded from data bank is one where paddy cultivation
is possible and feasible.
Going by the settled position of law, a decision in this regard
shall be taken independently by the Revenue Divisional Officer
concerned, after verifying the report of the Agricultural Officer and the
findings in the KSRSEC report, which is totally lacking in the orders
impugned. On the said ground, Ext.P6 in both the writ petitions are set
aside. There will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent/authorised officer
to reconsider the matter afresh after duly considering the KSRSEC
report and after conducting a site inspection. A decision as directed
above shall be taken within an outer limit of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner will be free to file argument
notes incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by him to
substantiate his contentions and the 2nd respondent/authorised officer
while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the
W.P.(C) Nos.31945 of 2022 and 32172 of 2022 6
2026:KER:8746
findings of this Court in the judgments cited (supra) and also the
contentions of the petitioner in the argument notes submitted by him.
With the abovesaid directions the writ petitions are disposed
of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
W.P.(C) Nos.31945 of 2022 and 32172 of 2022 7
2026:KER:8746
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 31945 OF 2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
15.12.2020.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATA BANK.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER
FORM 5 DATED 25.1.2021 FILED BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER
DATED 2.8.2021.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED FROM
THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, KSREC
DATED NIL.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.9.2022.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT.
W.P.(C) Nos.31945 of 2022 and 32172 of 2022 8
2026:KER:8746
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 32172 OF 2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
15.12.2020.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATA BANK.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER
FORM 5 DATED 25.1.2021 FILED BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED FROM
THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, KSREC
DATED NIL.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.9.2022.
