Haleema Beevi S vs Sub Collector
2026 Latest Caselaw 574 Ker

Kerala High Court

Haleema Beevi S vs Sub Collector on 20 January, 2026

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                           2026:KER:4632



                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. 2117 OF 2026

PETITIONER/S:

          HALEEMA BEEVI S
          AGED 48 YEARS
          D/O SALIHA UMMAL, CHANTHAVILA, KAAZHAKOTTAM, SAINIK
          SCHOOL P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695585.


          BY ADVS.
          SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH
          SMT.ABHIRAMI S.
          SHRI.ABDUL LATHEEF P.M.




RESPONDENT/S:

    1     SUB COLLECTOR
          DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNU,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043.

    2     VILLAGE OFFICER
          KAZHAKUTTAM VILLAGE OFFICE, MARKET ROAD, KAZHAKUTTAM,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695582.

    3     AGRICULTURE OFFICER
          KAZHAKKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695301.


          SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                   2026:KER:4632
WP(C) NO. 2117 OF 2026                   2




                          P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                   -----------------------------------------------
                          W.P.(C) No.2117 of 2026
                   -----------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 20th day of January, 2026

                                     JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

a) To issue a writ or order or directions in the nature of or similar to writ of certiorari to quash Ext-P5 impugned Order of the 1st respondent.

b) To issue a writ or directions or any other appropriate order directing the 1st respondent to remove the petitioner's land from the data bank.

c) Pass such other order or further directions in favor of the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

d) To dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular language.

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 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.

2026:KER:4632

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

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 2026:KER:4632

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.P5 order is set aside.

2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to

reconsider Ext.P4 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:4632

Court in the judgment dated 05.11.2025 Vinumon v.

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

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE Sru 2026:KER:4632

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 2117 OF 2026

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING REG.

NO. 381/1991 DATED 18.02.1991 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT BEARING RECEIPT NO: KL01010800381/2022 DATED 19.01.2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22/11/2025 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29/05/2023 Exhibit-P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 DATED 28.06.2025 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.

31178/2024 DATED 26.06.2026