[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Safeer Ali vs The Sub Collector on 15 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:3408
WP(C) NO. 1429 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. 1429 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SAFEER ALI
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. ABOOBACKER, PAROLI,
VALIYAD, KODUR-MALABAR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676504
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)
SHRI.ADARSH DHARMAJAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
PERUNTHALMANNA SHORNUR-PERUNTHALMANNA ROAD,
SHANTHI NAGAR, PERUNTHALMANNA, PIN - 679322
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KODUR VILLAGE OFFICE, KODUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676504
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHIBHAVAN, KODUR, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676504
BY SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3408
WP(C) NO. 1429 OF 2026
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 1429 of 2026
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2026.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction quashing Exhibit P4 as the same is illegal, arbitrary,
violative of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and in violation of the principles of
natural justice;
2. Declare that the rejection of the petitioner's Form-5
application based on present physical condition of the land and
the alleged nature of nearby properties is legally unsustainable,
when the statutory Data Bank itself records that the land had
been converted more than 20 years ago, long before the
enactment of the Act of 2008.
3. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the competent authority
to permit the petitioner to submit and consider a Form-6
application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, without
insisting upon prior removal of the land from the Data Bank,
taking into account the admitted fact of prior conversion
recorded in Exhibit P2;
4. To Dispense with the translation of documents in vernacular
language.
5. Pass any order this honourable court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice. "[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed
2026:KER:3408
WP(C) NO. 1429 OF 2026
st
by the 1 respondent rejecting the Form-5 application
submitted by him 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 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.
2026:KER:3408
WP(C) NO. 1429 OF 2026
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 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
2026:KER:3408
WP(C) NO. 1429 OF 2026
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
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:3408
WP(C) NO. 1429 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1429 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
08/04/2022
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT DATA BANK
ENTRY DATED NIL
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION
DATED 04/07/2022
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DATED
02.05.2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS DATED
21.11.2025
