[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shaheer vs Sub Collector/ Revenue Divisional ... on 7 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No.12624 of 2024
1
2026:KER:742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 17TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12624 OF 2024
PETITIONER(S):
SHAHEER,
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MUSTHAFA, PULIKKAL HOUSE, AKALUR
POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679302
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SREEHARI
SHRI.HAMZA A.V.
SMT.APARNA M.P.
SHRI.VIGNESH S.
RESPONDENT(S):
1 SUB COLLECTOR/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OTTAPALAM, OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR/ REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPALAM POST, OTTAPALAM
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY
LAND AND WET LAND ACT,2008), LAKKIDI PERUR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT , REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR -
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KRISHI
BHAVAN - LAKKIDI PERUR, MANGALAM POST,
OTTAPALAMTALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679301
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN - LAKKIDI PERUR,
MANGALAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679301
W.P.(C) No.12624 of 2024
2
2026:KER:742
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
LAKKADIPEROOR 1 VILLAGE, LAKKADIPEROOR 1 VILLAGE
OFFICE , NEAR PANCHAYAT OFFICE, MANGALAM POST,
OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679301
BY ADV.:
GP, SRI. K JANARDHANA SHENOY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.12624 of 2024
3
2026:KER:742
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.12624 of 2024
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or
direction, calling for the records leading to the passing of
order Exhibit P5 by the 1st respondent and to quash the
same.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order
or direction, directing the 1st respondent to reconsider and
pass fresh orders on the application submitted by the
petitioner in Form No.5 before the 1st respondent under the
provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet
Land Rules after obtaining a fresh and independent
Recommendation/ Report from the 2nd respondent and
thereafter verifying the same by physical inspection and also
with the satellite images of the same to be obtained from the
competent institution and also with due adherence to the
dictum laid down by this Hon'ble Court, governing the subject
matter, within a reasonable time frame as fixed by this
Hon'ble Court.
(iii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the
filing of English Translation of the vernacular typed and
vernacular documents filed in this Writ Petition (civil) on such
terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
2026:KER:742
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case" [SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order
passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the Form-5
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
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
2026:KER:742
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
2026:KER:742
considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set
aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition(C) is allowed in the
following manner:
1. Ext.P5 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent / authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the Form-5 application
submitted by the petitioner, 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,
2026:KER:742
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 the judgment dated
05.11.2025 in Vinumon v. District Collector
[2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
nvj
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 07.01.2026
Judgment dictated 07.01.2026
Draft Judgment placed 07.01.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 08 .01.2026
2026:KER:742
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 12624 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
01/11/2018 ISSUED FROM THE LAKKADIPEROOR
1 VILLAGE OFFICE, IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER, EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF
LAND TAX FOR THE PERIOD 2018-2019
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 07/02/2024 WITH NO.83425360, ISSUED
IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE
LAKKADIPEROOR 1 VILLAGE OFFICE
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/01/2021
WITH NO.164/2021, ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT, REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS
MADE BY THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING
COMMITTEE, REGARDING THE DECISION TAKEN
WITH RESPECT TO NO.F5/LKP 29/RDO44/2021-
22 IN THE MEETING HELD ON 07/02/2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT WITH NO.G2 - 1350/2022 DATED
10/05/2022
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING
THAT THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IS
LYING AS A GARDEN LAND
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
DATED 22/05/2023, ISSUED FROM THE TALUK
OFFICE, OTTAPALAM WITH
NO.PKD/0206/T/61758
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED AS 2023 (4)
KHC 524 (MURALEEDHARAN NAIR.R -VS-
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER)
