[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Nazar vs The District Collector on 18 February, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO.40600 OF 2025
1
2026:KER:14474
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 29TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40600 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
1 NAZAR
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. UMMAR, KAKKADATH HOUSE, KALADY, KAVILAPADI,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679582
2 SANIBA
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. NAZAR, KAKKADATH HOUSE, KALADY, KAVILAPADI,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679582
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTRATE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676505
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
TIRUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR-
THRIKANDIYOOR ROAD, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676101
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
COLLECTRATE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676505
4 THE TAHSILDAR
PONNANI TALUK OFFICE, OLD NH 17, PONNANI,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679577
WP(C) NO.40600 OF 2025
2
2026:KER:14474
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KALADY VILLAGE OFFICE, EDAPPAL - PARAPPURAM ROAD,
KALADY, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679582
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
KALADY KRISHI BHAVAN KADANCHERY P.O, PARAPPURAM,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679573
7 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT
CENTRE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
BY ADV.
GP - SRI. K JANARDHANA SHENOY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.40600 OF 2025
3
2026:KER:14474
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P(C) No. 40600 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the
records leading to Ext. P5 order and quash the
same.
ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd
respondent to reconsider the petitioners' Form 5
application afresh in accordance with law, strictly
adverting to the KSREC report (Ext.P6) and the
observations in Ext.P4 judgment, within a time
frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
iii) direct the respondents to remove the
petitioners' property comprised in Re-Survey
No.72/1 (Old Survey No.288/3-2) of Kalady Village,
Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District, having an
extent of 6 Ares 8.66 Sqm, from the Data Bank
maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
iv) To dispense with the filing of translation of
vernacular documents.
v) Issue such other writ, order or direction as
this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case."
[SIC]
WP(C) NO.40600 OF 2025
2026:KER:14474
2. The petitioners filed a Form - 5 application in
accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules', for brevity). The same was rejected
as per Ext.P3 order. The petitioners challenged the same before
this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.33399 of 2024. This Court as per
Ext.P4 judgment, set aside Ext.P3 order with specific directions.
Consequently, Ext.P5 order was passed by the authorised officer
rejecting the Form - 5 application submitted by the petitioners.
Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused Ext.P4 judgment. It will be better to
extract the relevant portion of Ext.P4 judgment:
"5. The petitioners' specific case is that, their
property is a garden land. The said property is not suitable
for paddy cultivation. Even going by the report of the
Agricultural Officer, there are trees of 20 years standing in
the property and the same is lying fallow. The petitioners
have also produced Ext.P5 photographs to substantiate
that there are buildings in the adjacent property.
6. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this Court has
held that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness of the land,
and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation as
on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the
Act, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the
Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the
data bank (read the decisions of this Court in
WP(C) NO.40600 OF 2025
2026:KER:14474
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 and
others (2021 (1) KLT 433)).
7. Ext.P3 order reveals that the 2nd respondent has
rejected Ext.P2 application solely on the basis of the report
of the 6th respondent. In fact, the 6th respondent has
stated that there are trees above 20 years of age in the
petitioners' property and the same is a low-lying land.
8. In Sudheesh's case (supra), this Court has
emphatically held that, just because a property is left
fallow, the land cannot be brought into the definition of
the paddy land. Instead, the Revenue Divisional Officer
has to be satisfied that the land is suitable for paddy
cultivation and left fallow, and only on satisfying the twin
conditions, the land can be treated as paddy land falling
under the definition of the Act.
9. In the case on hand, even going by Ext.P4 KSREC
report, it is evident that the petitioners' property is
covered with scattered plantation towards south and west
side and there is a building/structure towards southern
side in the data of 2008. The said land pattern has been
continued in 2018 and 2022. However, these two aspects
have not been considered by the 2nd respondent. Hence, I
hold that there is total non-application of mind in passing
the impugned order. The entire decision making process is
vitiated and is bad for errors of law. Hence, I am inclined
to quash Ext.P3 order and direct the 2nd respondent to
reconsider the matter afresh and in accordance with law,
after adverting to the principles of law laid down in the
aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record.
WP(C) NO.40600 OF 2025
2026:KER:14474
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P3 order is quashed.
(ii). The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 application, in accordance with law,
and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three
months from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly."
5. Thereafter, Ext.P5 order was passed by the authorised
officer again rejecting the Form - 5 application submitted by the
petitioners. This Court perused Ext.P5 order. In paragraph Nos.1 to
3, the statement of facts and the filing of the Writ Petition before
this Court are narrated. Thereafter, in two sentence, the application
was again rejected. This is nothing but flouting the directions issued
by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. This Court in Vinumon v.
District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275] considered the manner in
which a Form - 5 application is to be considered. Therefore, I am of
the considered opinion that the Form - 5 application is to be
reconsidered by the authorised officer in the light of the specific
directions in Ext.P4 judgment and also in the light of the dictum laid
down by this Court in Vinumon's case (supra).
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following
manner:
1. Ext.P5 order is set aside.
WP(C) NO.40600 OF 2025
2026:KER:14474
2. The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form - 5 application afresh in
the light of the directions in Ext.P4 judgment and
also in the light of the dictum laid down by this
Court in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025
(6) KLT 275], as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 18.02.2026
Judgment dictated 18.02.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 18.02.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 19.02.2026
WP(C) NO.40600 OF 2025
2026:KER:14474
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 40600 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
14.03.2023
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED
10.11.2023
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
23.05.2025 IN W.P (C) NO. 33399/2024
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
DCMPM/13461/2024-T3 DATED 13.08.2025
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED
25.03.2024
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONERS
