[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rekha vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 14 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 47878 of 2025
1
2026:KER:2711
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. 47878 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
REKHA
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O RAMAN, PADIKKALAKKANDI, VATTOLI, KAKKATTIL VIA,
KUNNUMMAL POST, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673507
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JAVAD MOIDU
SHRI.HASHARURAHIMAN U.
SHRI.SATHWIK S.J.
SMT.LIDHIYA GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
VADAKARA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OLD BUS STAND
VADAKARA, OPPS. GOVT REST HOUSE, PUTHIYAPPU,
VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673101
2 TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION COMPLEX, VADAKARA,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673101
3 VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE KUNNUMMAL, KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE, PIN
- 673507
4 KRISHI OFFICER
KUNNUMMAL KRISHI BHAVAN, MOKERI, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673507
W.P.(C) No. 47878 of 2025
2
2026:KER:2711
BY ADV.
GP, SRI. K JANARDHANA SHENOY
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. 47878 of 2025
3
2026:KER:2711
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 47878 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 writ,
direction or order direction to set aside Exhibit P3, the
rejection order issued by the 1st respondent.
ii. Direct the respondents to remove the petitioner's
property from the Data Bank, considering its longstanding dry
land usage.
iii. To dispense with the translation of the documents
produced in the vernacular language.
iv. Grant any other appropriate relief, as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and just in the circumstances."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
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.
2026:KER:2711
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
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
2026:KER:2711
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.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 1st 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,
2026:KER:2711
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:2711
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 47878 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
02.05.2025.
EXHIBIT-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
DATED 30.01.2024.
EXHIBIT-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER OF
FORM 5 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
13.08.2024.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
07/03/2024 IN WP (C) NO.8886/2024.
