[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Anoop Aniyankunju vs State Of Kerala on 5 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No.25859 of 2024
1
2026:KER:181
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. 25859 OF 2024
PETITIONER(S):
ANOOP ANIYANKUNJU,
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ANIYANKUNJU, KALLUTARAYIL(H),
KAREELAKULANGARA P.O,, PIN - 690572
BY ADVS.
SHRI.AKHIL RAJ
SMT.LIYA ELZA ALEX
RESPONDENT(S):
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 689121
BY ADV.:
GP, SRI RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.25859 of 2024
2
2026:KER:181
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.25859 of 2024
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 05th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus,
order or direction to the 2nd respondent to
reconsider Exhibit P5 application in a fixed time
frame; and/or
(ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper.
(iii) Dispense with filing of the translation of
vernacular documents.
(iv) It is humbly prayed that an order may be
please to issued directing the 2nd respondent to
set aside Exhibit P6 order issued by the 2 nd
respondent. " [SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order
passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting Ext.P5 Form-5
application submitted by the petitioner under the Kerala
2026:KER:181
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 Village 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.
2026:KER:181
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(C) is allowed in the
following manner:
1. Ext.P6 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent / authorised officer is
2026:KER:181
directed to reconsider Ext.P5 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,
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
2026:KER:181
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 05.01.2026
Judgment dictated 05.01.2026
Draft Judgment placed 06.01.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 07 .01.2026
2026:KER:181
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 25859 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
1067/17 DATED 13.10.2017
Exhibit -P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO. 34492 OF 2019 DATED 24.07.2020
Exhibit -P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1665/2020 DATED
17.03.2021
Exhibit -P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. T.A(3)
6784/2020K.DIS ISSUED BY THE SUB
COLLECTOR DATED 20.07.2021
Exhibit -P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit -P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
17.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DISMISSING THE EXT.P5
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
