[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Pareed vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 5 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:45
WP(C) NO. 48189 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. 48189 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
PAREED
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O CHEEMAN, KAZHUNGIL HOUSE THRITHALA P.O,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679534
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.I.SAGEER
SRI.MUHAMMED YASIL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678001
2 VILLAGE OFFICER
THRITHALA VILLAGE OFFICE THRITHALA P.O,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 679534
3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE THRITHALA GRAMA
PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
THRITHALA P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679534
4 DEPUTY COLLECTOR LR
CIVIL STATION, KUNNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2026:KER:45
WP(C) NO. 48189 OF 2025
2
5 AGRICULTURE OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, THRITHALA P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN -
679534
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:45
WP(C) NO. 48189 OF 2025
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.48189 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 05th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. To call for the records relating to Ext.P2 order of
the 4th respondent and to quash the same by
issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ;
ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
Writ, direction or order directing the 4th
respondent to consider and pass fresh orders on
the Ext.P1 FORM-5 request of the petitioner in the
interest of justice;
iii. Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular
documents.
iv. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
(SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
the 4th 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
2026:KER:45
WP(C) NO. 48189 OF 2025
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 Officer/Sub
2026:KER:45
WP(C) NO. 48189 OF 2025
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.P2 order is set aside.
2. The 4th 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.
2026:KER:45
WP(C) NO. 48189 OF 2025
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:45
WP(C) NO. 48189 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 48189 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION
DATED 01.10.2022
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
19.12.2024 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY
