[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Susy Mathew vs The District Collector on 5 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:42
WP(C) NO. 48058 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 15TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 48058 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
SUSY MATHEW
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O T.M MATHEW, THETTIKKOTTUMUGALATH HOUSE,
PULINATTU LANE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAMN - 683542
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.KRISHNA RAJA MAULI
SMT.MINI.K.NAIR
SMT.AAFINA SANTHOSH
SMT.ABHIRAMI G. NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682030
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, K B JACOB ROAD, FORT
KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
3 THE TAHASILDAR
KOCHI TALUK OFFICE, K B JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PUTHUVYPE VILLAGE OFFICE, SH-63, VYPIN-
PALLIPPURAM STATE HIGHWAY OCHANTHURUTH,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682508
2026:KER:42
WP(C) NO. 48058 OF 2025
2
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
ELAMKUNNAPUZHA KRISHI BHAVAN, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682503
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:42
WP(C) NO. 48058 OF 2025
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.48058 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 05th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Call for records leading to Exhibit P4 Form 5
rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent and
quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the 2nd
respondent to reconsider the Exhibit P3 form 5
application and pass orders based on the KSREC
report as well as site inspection.
iii. To direct the respondents/ to prepare the Data Bank
by removing the property from the notified Data
Bank.
iv. To dispense with the production of translated
vernacular documents.
v. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of
justice.
(SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
the 2nd respondent rejecting the Form-5 application submitted
2026:KER:42
WP(C) NO. 48058 OF 2025
by her 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 surrounding paddy fields.
5. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v. Revenue
Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh U v. The
2026:KER:42
WP(C) NO. 48058 OF 2025
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.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
2026:KER:42
WP(C) NO. 48058 OF 2025
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 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
JV
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 05.01.2026
Judgment dictated 05.01.2026
Draft Judgment placed 05.01.2026
Final Judgment 06.01.2026
uploaded
2026:KER:42
WP(C) NO. 48058 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 48058 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
26.08.2022
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DATA BANK PUBLISHED BY ELANKUNNAPUZHA
GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 23.02.2012
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION
DATED 06.09.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 REJECTION
ORDER DATED 07.11.2024 BEARING FILE
NO.9180/2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF REPLY FURNISHED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER RTI
ACT ON 4.1.2025
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICTING
THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY
