Jinesh N P vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 562 Ker

Kerala High Court

Jinesh N P vs State Of Kerala on 20 January, 2026

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                           2026:KER:4693



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

     TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 30TH POUSHA, 1947

                         WP(C) NO. 2118 OF 2026

PETITIONER/S:

          JINESH N P,
          AGED 44 YEARS
          S/O BHASKARAN, NELLAKKARA PADIYATH HOUSE, THANDALAM,
          NARIPPARAMBU P.O, MALAPPURAM,, PIN - 679573.


          BY ADVS.
          SHRI.AJITH M. JIJI
          SHRI.RAJESH BABU T.


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN - 695001.

    2     DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R.) / R.D.O.,
          R.D.O. OFFICE, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
          PIN - 679583.

    3     AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
          KRISHI BHAVAN, KALADY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA,
          PIN - 679582.

    4     VILLAGE OFFICER,
          KALADY VILLAGE OFFICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA,
          PIN - 679582.


          SMT DEEPA V, GP
                                                      2026:KER:4693
WP(C) NO. 2118 OF 2026             2




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                     2026:KER:4693
WP(C) NO. 2118 OF 2026                       3




                          P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                   -----------------------------------------------
                          W.P.(C) No.2118 of 2026
                   -----------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 20th day of January, 2026

                                   JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside Exhibit P2 order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponnani Taluk.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the Form 5 application afresh in accordance with law, after conducting a physical site inspection and granting the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the respondents herein for the removal and rectification of erroneous entries from data bank and Revenue record with regard to the property of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd

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 2026:KER:4693

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 authorized 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 whether the property merits

exclusion from the data bank. The impugned order is not in 2026:KER:4693

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.P2 order is set aside.

2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to

reconsider Ext.P1 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, 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 2026:KER:4693

Court in the judgment dated 05.11.2025 in Vinumon v.

District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE Sru 2026:KER:4693

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 2118 OF 2026

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 04.03.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT