[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Parameswaran Namboothri vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 14 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO.23979 OF 2024
1
2026:KER:2944
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 24TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 23979 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHRI,
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, CHERUVAKKARA
MANA,PAVARATTY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
680507
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASOK KUMAR K.P.
SHRI.RAKESH S MENON
SHRI.ABDUL HAMEED RAFI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
PAVARATTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PAVARATTY,
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER AND AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, PAVARATTY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680507
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
PAVARATTY KRISHI BHAVAN, PAVARATTY, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680507
BY ADV.
GP, SMT. NIMA JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.23979 OF 2024
2
2026:KER:2944
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P(C) No. 23979 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following
prayers:
"i) Declare that Exhibit P-10 Order is
against law, arbitrary and per se illegal;
ii) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P-
10 order of rejection of Form 5 application by
the 1st Respondent and issue a Writ of certiorari
or such other appropriate Writ, orders or
directions quashing the same;
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other
writ or order or direction to the 1st respondent
to allow the Form 5 application within a time
frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the
interest of justice;
iv) To dispense with the production of
English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits
produced along with the Writ Petition in the
interest of justice;
v) Render such other orders or directions
as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit, proper
and necessary in the facts and circumstances of
the case."
[SIC]
WP(C) NO.23979 OF 2024
2026:KER:2944
2. A Form - 5 application submitted by the petitioner
was rejected as evident by Ext.P7. The petitioner challenged
the same by filing W.P.(C) No.9720 of 2024. This Court as per
Ext.P8 judgment set aside Ext.P7 order and directed to
reconsider the Form - 5 application. Now, again Ext.P10 order
is passed rejecting the Form - 5 application submitted by the
petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appeairng for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused Ext.P8 judgment of this Court by
which Ext.P7 order was set aside. It will be better to extract
the relevant portion of Ext.P8 judgment:
"6. This Court, in Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue
Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270], has held that
when the petitioner seeks removal of his land from
the Data Bank, it will not be sufficient for the
Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application
simply stating that the LLMC has decided not to
remove the land from the Data Bank. The Revenue
Divisional Officer being the competent authority, has
to independently assess the status of the land and
come to a conclusion that removal of the land from
the Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation
in the land in question or in the nearby paddy lands
or that it will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands
in the area and in the absence of such findings, the
WP(C) NO.23979 OF 2024
2026:KER:2944
impugned order is unsustainable.
7. Further, it is trite law that, merely because the
property is lying fallow and water gets logged during
rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature
of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or
paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. In Aparna
Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda
[2023 (6) KHC 83], this Court has held that existence
of neerchals in a property should never be a prime
consideration in deciding whether the land is to be
retained in the Data Bank. Instead, the prime
consideration should be whether paddy cultivation is
possible in the property in question.
8. In Mather Nagar Residents Association and
Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam others (2020
(2) KLT 192), a Division Bench of this Court held as
follows:-
"22. Going by the definition of
wetland, we are of the view that, in order to
treat a particular land as wetland, it should
have the characteristic features and
requirement as is provided under Act, 2008.
It is clear from the report submitted by the
Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well
as report of KSRSEC, the nodal agency of
State Government, that the properties in
question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never
treated as wetland in accordance with the
provisions of Act, 2008. It is also significant
to note that from the definition of wetland
under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are
WP(C) NO.23979 OF 2024
2026:KER:2944
excluded. The report submitted by the
KSRSEC is not disputed by the Residents
Association. Merely because the property is
lying fallow and water gets logged during
rainy season or otherwise due to the low
lying nature of the property, it cannot be
termed as wetland or paddy land in
contemplation of Act, 2008."
9. In Adani Infrastructures & Developers Pvt. Ltd,
Mumbai & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Others [2014
(1) KHC 685], this Court has held that if the land
suitable for paddy cultivation is uncultivated and left
fallow and if the said land is included as paddy land in
the village records and if the property is locked on all
four sides with lands which were reclaimed before the
coming into force of the Act, 2008, such lands cannot
be said as suitable for cultivation and may come
outside the definition of paddy land.
10. In Sudheesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer
[2023 (2) KLT 386], this Court held that just for the
reason that the property is left fallow, the land cannot
be brought within the definition of Paddy Land. This
Court observed as follows:-
"Going by the definition in S.2(xii) of "paddy
land" in the Act, 2008, to bring in a land
within the definition of paddy land, it should
be suitable for paddy cultivation, but
uncultivated and left fallow. Just for the
reason that the property is left fallow, the
land cannot be brought within the definition
of paddy land but the Revenue Divisional
WP(C) NO.23979 OF 2024
2026:KER:2944
Officer should be satisfied that the land is
suitable for paddy cultivation and left fallow
and therefore only on satisfaction of the
said twin conditions that a land could be
treated as paddy land coming under the
definition of S.2(xii) of the Act, 2008."
11. In spite of the categorical declarations by this
Court in the decisions cited above, the petitioner's
application has been rejected, solely relying on the
report of the Agricultural Officer, who recommended
not to remove the land from the Data Bank.
Accordingly, I find that Ext.P7 order cannot be
sustained and I set aside the same with a direction to
the 1 st respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer to
reconsider the application of the petitioner in Form 5
in accordance with law and take a decision in the
matter after obtaining the KSRSEC report at the
expense of the petitioner, within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of the report of the
KSRSEC. The petitioner shall apply before the
Agricultural Officer concerned for KSRSEC report
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall
produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy
of this judgment before the 1st respondent for
compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above
directions."
5. After the above specific directions from this Court,
Ext.P10 order was passed. In Ext.P10, paragraph Nos.1 to 5
WP(C) NO.23979 OF 2024
2026:KER:2944
are statement of facts. The discussion part of Ext.P10 order is
extracted hereunder:
"അപേക്ഷ വസ്തുവിന്റെ KSREC റിപ്പോർട്ട്
പരിശോധിച്ചതിൽ ' The plot was bordered by a stream
on east side was observed under fallow land with
mixed vegetation/plantation towards north side in the
data of 2008.. The same land use pattern were
continued in the data of 2010 and 2012" എന്ന്
കാണുന്നു.
ആയതിനാൽ അപേക്ഷ വസ്തു 2008 ന് മുൻപ്
പരിവർത്തനപ്പെട്ടിട്ടില്ലാത്തതായി കാണുന്നു.
തീരുമാനം
മേൽ പറഞ്ഞ രേഖകൾ വിശദമായി പരിശോധിച്ചതിന്റെ
അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ തൃശ്ശൂർ ജില്ലയിൽ ചാവക്കാട് താലൂക്ക് പാവറട്ടി
വില്ലേജ് സർവെ നമ്പര് 153 / 1-5 ൽ പ്പെട്ട 0.4330 ഹെക്ടർ
ഭൂമിയെ സംബന്ധിച്ച് പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ച ഡാറ്റാ ബാങ്കിൽ നിന്ന്
ഒഴിവാക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള അനുമതി നിരസിച്ച് ഉത്തരവാകുന്നു
ഇതിനാൽ ബഹു. കോടതിയുടെ WP(C) 9720/2024 നമ്പർ
കേസിലെ വിധിന്യായം പാലിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു."
6. This is nothing but flouting the directions issued by
this Cout in Ext.P8 judgment. This Court in Vinumon v.
District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275] considered in detail
about the manner in which a Form - 5 application is to be
considered. When this Court issued specific directions in
Ext.P8 judgment, this is not the manner in which a Form - 5
WP(C) NO.23979 OF 2024
2026:KER:2944
application is to be considered again. Therefore, Ext.P10 is to
be set aside and the Form - 5 application is to be reconsidered
in the light of the directions in Ext.P8 judgment and also in the
light of the dictum laid down in Vinumon's case (supra).
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following
manner:
1. Ext.P10 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/Authorised Officer is
directed to reconsider the Form - 5
application submitted by the petitioner in the
light of the specific directions in Ext.P8
judgment and also in the light of the dictum
laid down in Vinumon's case (supra), as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a
period of two months from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 14.01.2026
Judgment dictated 14.01.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 15.01.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 16.01.2026
WP(C) NO.23979 OF 2024
2026:KER:2944
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 23979 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 08.06.2022
EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 12.04.2022
EXHIBIT P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DRAFT DATA BANK
EXHIBIT P- 4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
DATA BANK NOTIFIED IN GAZETTE AS NO.
A8-3032/20 DATED 15.01.2021
EXHIBIT P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 16.06.2022
EXHIBIT P- 6 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING
THE GROUND REALITY OF THE LAND
EXHIBIT P-7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 6154/2023 DATED
07.01.2024 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C)
NO. 9720/2024 DATED 13.03.2024
EXHIBIT P-9 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT BEARING
NO. A-172/2015/KSREC/004478/24 DATED
14.05.2024
EXHIBIT P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
RDOTSR/3000/2024-D5 DATED 26.06.2024
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
