[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Mini P Kumar vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 15 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:3275
WP(C) NO. 1420 OF 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 25TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1420 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
MINI P KUMAR
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O PRASANNAKUMAR,
CHAITHRAM BHAVAN,
ARUKALICKAL EAST,
NEDUMON P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691556
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN
SMT.BLESSY MARY SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691523
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR(DM)
DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, PATHANMATHITTA,
PIN - 689645
3 VILLAGE OFFICER
KOODAL VILLAGE OFFICE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689693
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN KOODAL,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689693
2026:KER:3275
WP(C) NO. 1420 OF 2026
2
5 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
BY GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3275
WP(C) NO. 1420 OF 2026
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 1420 of 2026
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2026.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"a) call for the records leading to Exhibit P4 and
quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other
appropriate writ, order or direction;
b) Declare that the property covered by Ext. P1 is not
paddy lands as defined under section 2(XII) of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act and is liable to be
excluded from the data bank and direct the 2nd respondent to
remove the property from data bank;
c) to direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider Form 5
application after considering all the relevant materials and
after obtaining KSREC report.
d) to dispense with the filing of the translation of
vernacular documents.
e) issue such other writ, order or direction 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 the 1st respondent rejecting the Form-5 application
submitted by her under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
2026:KER:3275
WP(C) NO. 1420 OF 2026
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 property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy
fields.
5. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh
2026:KER:3275
WP(C) NO. 1420 OF 2026
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:
1. Ext.P4 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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
2026:KER:3275
WP(C) NO. 1420 OF 2026
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
directed by this court in Vinumon v. District
Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
SPV
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 15.01.2026
Judgment dictated 15.01.2026
Draft Judgment placed 15.01.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 16.01.2026
2026:KER:3275
WP(C) NO. 1420 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1420 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2025
Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATA BANK PUBLISHED FOR KALANJOOR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT
Exhibit -P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.
5 DATED 22.04.2025
Exhibit -P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEARING NO. 51/2025 DATED
20.05.2025
Exhibit -P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTY
SHOWING THE PROPERTY IS LANDLOCKED
