[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Nisha Shoukath vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 2 February, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 36254 of 2025
1
2026:KER:8592
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. 36254 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
NISHA SHOUKATH
AGED 50 YEARS
D/O. K.Y. SHOUKATH ALI, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE,
THRIKKANARVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682018
BY ADV. SRI.V.S.ANU MON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
FORT KOCHI, RDO OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682001
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
KANAYANNUR TALUK, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682030
3 TAHSILDAR,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682011
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE OFFICE, NGO QUARTERS,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682021
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM PIN - 682030
W.P.(C) No. 36254 of 2025
2
2026:KER:8592
6 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR, VIKASBHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695033
BY ADV.
SRI. K JANARDHANA SHENOY, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 36254 of 2025
3
2026:KER:8592
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 36254 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 02nd day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, to quash Exhibit P-3 order of the 2 nd
respondent.
ii)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 4th
respondent Village Officer to give sufficient reports
required under the Act and the Rules to the 3 rd
respondent or the officer authorised under Section
2(XVA) of the Act, without further delay.
iii)Dispense with the filing of the translation of
vernacular documents produced along with this writ
petition. And
iv)Issue such other Writs, directions or orders as
this Hon'ble Court may feel just and necessary in the
interest of Justice."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order
passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the Form-5
2026:KER:8592
application submitted by the petitioner 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 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
2026:KER:8592
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 impugned order is to be set
aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the
following manner:
1. Ext.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
2026:KER:8592
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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.
4. If the authorised officer is either
dismissing or allowing the petition, a
2026:KER:8592
speaking order as directed by this court
in Vinumon v. District Collector
[2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
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:8592
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 36254 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT
DATED 27.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P-2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION
DATED 20.10.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P-3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
23.11.2024 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION
DATED 08.09.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
I
