[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Lakshmi Sujith vs The State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 48284 of 2025
1
2026:KER:1646
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 22ND POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 48284 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S):
LAKSHMI SUJITH
AGED 32 YEARS
W/O. SUJITH, PARUTHURUTHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM
P.O., AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682315
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.V.JAYADEEP MENON
SRI.T.P.RAMESH (THENGUMPILLIL)
SMT.P.KRISHNAPRIYA
RESPONDENT(S):
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT
KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001
4 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R R)
AUTHORISED OFFICER IN CHARGE OF KANAYANNOOR
TALUK, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
W.P.(C) No. 48284 of 2025
2
2026:KER:1646
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
NADAMA VILLAGE, POST OFFICE ROAD,
THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682301
6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, THRIPUNITHURA, MINI CIVIL
STATION, MAIN ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682301
BY ADV.
GP, SMT. DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 48284 of 2025
3
2026:KER:1646
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 48284 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside
Exhibit-P3 passed by the 4th respondent rejecting Form 5
application of the petitioner as it is illegal and
unsustainable.
ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4 th
respondent to re-consider Exhibit-P2 application by
conducting site inspection and also on the basis of the
Exhibits-P4 to P7 within a time frame as may be decided
by this Honourable Court.
iii. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or
direction as the case may be as this Honourable Court
deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice.
iv. Pleased to dispense with English translation of
the documents produced herewith.
v. Award costs to the petitioner."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed
by the 4th respondent rejecting the Form-5
2026:KER:1646
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
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
2026:KER:1646
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:1646
1. Ext.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 4th respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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.
2026:KER:1646
4. If the authorised officer is either
dismissing 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
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 12.01.2026
Judgment dictated 12.01.2026
Draft Judgment placed 12.01.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 13.01.2026
2026:KER:1646
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 48284 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 26.07.2022 ISSUED FROM THE
VILLAGE OFFICE NADAMA.
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN UNDER FORM 5 OF
THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND
AND WET LAND RULES, 2008 DATED
31.08.2022.
EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 07.08.2025.
EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE KSREC REPORT
NO.172/2015/KSREC/003895/24 WITH
REGARD TO THE LAND COMPRISED IN SURVEY
NO.24/9 OF NADAMA VILLAGE DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED
26.03.2025 NO. RDOCHN/ 16124/2022-K16
ALLOWING FORM 5 APPLICATION REGARDING
THE PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO.
24/105 OF NADAMA VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED
03.09.2025 IN FILE NO. 2878/2025
ALLOWING FORM 6 APPLICATION REGARDING
THE PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO.
24/105 OF NADAMA VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED
29.05.2025 NO.
RDOCHN/11708/2022-B23/K-DIS ALLOWING
FORM 5 APPLICATION REGARDING THE
PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO. 24/9
OF NADAMA VILLAGE PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT HEREIN.
