[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Devi K vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 14 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 47833 of 2025
1
2026:KER:2710
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. 47833 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
DEVI K
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O MURALI C, SREE GANESH HOUSE, MOOTHANTHARA P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678012
BY ADV SHRI.SARATH M.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE RDO, PARAKKUNNAM, VYDYUTH NAGAR,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, PIRIYARI , PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678004
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PIRIYARI VILLAGE, PIRIYARI P.O., PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678004
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:
W.P.(C) No. 47833 of 2025
2
2026:KER:2710
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 47833 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2026.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate
Writs, Orders or direction, to call for the records leading to
Exhibit P-4 and to quash the same.
ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate
Writ, Orders or direction commanding the 1 st respondent to
exclude the property of the petitioner from the data bank by
reconsidering the application submitted by the petitioner in
Form 5 afresh with the assistance of the report of the Kerala
State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre,
Thiruvananthapuram and site inspection of first respondent as
expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time frame to be
fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
iii. Issue a Writ to declare that, the impugned Exhibit P-4
is per se illegal as the same is issued in violation of the
provisions of Act 28 of 2008;
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 as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
2026:KER:2710
the 1st respondent rejecting the Form-5 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 based on the report of
the Agricultural Officer. Eventhough KSREC report is
available, the same is not properly considered by the
authorised officer. 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],
2026:KER:2710
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 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider the 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
2026:KER:2710
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 Vinumon v. District
Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 14.01.2026
Judgment dictated 14.01.2026
Draft Judgment placed 14.01.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 16.01.2026
2026:KER:2710
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 47833 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2500/2015 OF
S.R.O PALAKKAD DATED 29-04-2015
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 19-06-2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23-04-2025
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.2580/2025 DATED 20-
05-2025 BY 1ST RESPONDENT
