[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ebbey Abraham Tharakan @ Aby vs The Sub Collector & Revenue Divisional ... on 2 February, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:8498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 13TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 3595 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
EBBEY ABRAHAM THARAKAN @ ABY
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. P.A. ABRHAM THARAKAN, AYYANATTUPARAYIL,
THAIKATTUSSERRY P.O., ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688528
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.R.PRATHISH
SHRI.P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN
SMT.DEVIKA A.L.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR & REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF RDO, ALAPPUZHA,,
PIN - 688001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (DM)
COLLECTORATE (CIVIL STATION),
BEACH ROAD, ALAPPUZHA,, PIN - 688001
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,,
PIN - 688524
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, PATTANAKADU P.O.,
CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA, PIN - 688531
2026:KER:8498
WP(C) NO.3595 OF 2026
2
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
VAYALAR KRISHI BHAVAN, VAYALAR,
ALAPPUZHA,,
PIN - 688536
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:8498
WP(C) NO.3595 OF 2026
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P (C) No.3595 of 2026
-------------------------------
Dated this the 02nd day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" i) Call for the records pertaining to Ext.P7 and
quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.
ii) Direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the
Petitioner Ext.P3 Form 5 application and
remove the entry of petitioner's property from
data Bank within a time frame fixed by this
Hon'ble court.
iii) Allow the writ petition writ petition with
cost."
[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
2026:KER:8498
WP(C) NO.3595 OF 2026
comply with the statutory requirements. The impugned order was
passed by the authorised officer based on the reports of the
Agricultural Officer and Village Officer. There is no indication in the
order that the authorized 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
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
2026:KER:8498
WP(C) NO.3595 OF 2026
opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following
manner:
1. Ext.P7 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P3 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 production of a copy of this
judgment by the petitioner.
2026:KER:8498
WP(C) NO.3595 OF 2026
4. If the Authorised Officer is either dismissing or
allowing the petition, a speaking order, as
directed by this Court in the judgment dated
05.11.2025 in Vinumon v. District Collector
[2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SSG
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 02.02.2026
Judgment dictated 02.02.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 02.02.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 03.02.2026
2026:KER:8498
WP(C) NO.3595 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 3595 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
26.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER
FOR THE YEAR 2024-2025 IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK PUBLISHED BY
THE VAYALAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED
12.11.2020
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.03.2020
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED
14.12.2020
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
11.11.2022 IN WP (C) NO. 36161 OF 2022
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
12.01.2026 IN WP (C) NO. 7709 OF 2025 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 ORDER DATED NIL
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT OBTAINED
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
