[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Achutha Ajaykumar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer Fort ... on 12 February, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:12913
WP(C) NO. 5236 OF 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 5236 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
ACHUTHA AJAYKUMAR
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O K V ACHUTHA WARRIER,
KODALLUR WARIAM, PERUMBULLISSERY,
CHERPU P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.,
PIN - 680561
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN
SHRI.BIBIN KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI
REVENUE ZONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR,
KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI,
KERALA., PIN - 682001
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR),
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682030
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN CHERANELLOOR,
CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT ROAD,
SOUTH CHITTOOR, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA ., PIN - 682027
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE CHERANELLOOR,
CHITTOOR ROAD, SOUTH CHITTOOR,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA ., PIN - 682027
2026:KER:12913
WP(C) NO. 5236 OF 2026
2
5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTER,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695033
BY GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:12913
WP(C) NO. 5236 OF 2026
1
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.5236 of 2026
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"1. Call for the records leading to Exhibit P4 and
quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other
appropriate writ, order or direction;
2. Declare that the property covered by Ext. 1 is
liable to be excluded from the data bank and direct
the 2nd respondent to remove the property from data
bank;
3. Direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the
application filed by the petitioners in Form No. 5(Ext.
P3), after obtaining KSREC Report.
4. Dispense with the filing of translation of all
vernacular documents.
5. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper 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).
2026:KER:12913
WP(C) NO. 5236 OF 2026
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
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
2026:KER:12913
WP(C) NO. 5236 OF 2026
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.P4 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.
2026:KER:12913
WP(C) NO. 5236 OF 2026
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 speaking order as
directed by this court in Vinumon v. District
Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be
passed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
SPV
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 12.02.2026
Judgment dictated 12.02.2026
Draft Judgment placed 12.02.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 13. .02.2026
2026:KER:12913
WP(C) NO. 5236 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 5236 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
22/01/2026 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATA BANK FOR CHERANELLOOR GRAMA
PANCHAYATH
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION WITH
RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY MENTIONED IN EXT
P1 FILED IN FORM 5 DATED 30/11/2022
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 814/2025
DATED 03/05/2025
