[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ayyappankutti K vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 20 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 48089 of 2025
1
2026:KER:4918
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. 48089 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
AYYAPPANKUTTI K
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O KRISHNANKUTTY, 5/176 PUTHEN VEEDU,
VITHANASSERI NEMMARA P.O PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678508
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, VALLANGI , PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678508
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VALLANGI VILLAGE, VALLANGI P.O., PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678508
BY ADV. SR GP - SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 48089 of 2025
2
2026:KER:4918
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 48089 of 2025
------------------------------------------------
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 other
appropriate Writs, Orders or direction, to call for the
records leading to Exhibit P3 and to quash the same.
ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other
appropriate Writ, Orders or direction commanding the
1st 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 P3 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]
2026:KER:4918
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.
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,
2026:KER:4918
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 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:
2026:KER:4918
1. Ext.P3 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
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
2026:KER:4918
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 20.01.2026
Judgment dictated 20.01.2026
Draft Judgment placed 21.01.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 22.01.2026
2026:KER:4918
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 48089 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 10-01-2023 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
25-07-2022
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER
NO.RDOPKD/3224/2022-M2 DATED 27-06-
2022 BY 1ST RESPONDENT
