[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Faisal Valiyakath Hamsa vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 12 February, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:12929
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. 5264 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
FAISAL VALIYAKATH HAMSA
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. V.K. HAMSA, VALIYAKATH HOUSE,
THARAVATHPADI, PIRAYIRI P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678004
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SMT.ANJANA KRISHNAN
SHRI.VINCENT C. J.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
PALAKKAD HEAD POST OFFICE,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE PIRAYIRI GRAMA
PANCHAYAT
KRISHI BHAVAN, PIRAYIRI P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678004
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PIRAYIRI VILLAGE OFFICE,
2026:KER:12929
WP(C) NO. 5264 OF 2026
2
PIRAYIRI P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678004
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:12929
WP(C) NO. 5264 OF 2026
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. of 202
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"I. Quash Exhibit-P2 issuing a writ in the nature of
certiorari;
II. Direct the first respondent to delete the 0.0456 hectors
of land comprised in Survey Block No. 19, Re-Survey No.
55/17-4 in Pirayiri Village, Palakkad Taluk & Palakkad
District from the data bank for the area;
III. Direct the first respondent to reconsider and pass
appropriate orders on the application for correction of the
mistake in the data bank submitted by the petitioner
afresh after conducting a physical inspection of the plot
and in view of the relevant provisions and government
orders;
IV. Declare that 0.0456 hectors of land comprised in
Survey Block No. 19, Re-Survey No. 55/17-4 in Pirayiri
Village, Palakkad Taluk & Palakkad District is not a land to
be included in the data bank for the area;
V. To dispense with the production of the translated copies
of the documents in vernacular language; and
VI. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble
court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case. "
2026:KER:12929
WP(C) NO. 5264 OF 2026
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order
passed by the 1st 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 Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. There
is no independent finding regarding the nature and
2026:KER:12929
WP(C) NO. 5264 OF 2026
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 impugned order is
to be set aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the
following manner:
2026:KER:12929
WP(C) NO. 5264 OF 2026
1. Ext.P2 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P1 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
2026:KER:12929
WP(C) NO. 5264 OF 2026
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:12929
WP(C) NO. 5264 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 5264 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO.
211/2022/924566 DATED 13.04.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3986/2024
DATED 26.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S
PLOT.
