[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Mohanan vs The Sub Collector on 20 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:4748
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. 39339 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
MOHANAN,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. PODIYAN, KANNANGATTU PARAMPIL, PADUVA P.O.,
KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686564.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
SMT.NEENA ELISABATH ANTONY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SUB COLLECTOR,
RDO OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001.
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, AYARKUNNAM, PIN - 686564.
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
AYARKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REP BY ITS CONVENOR, THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN, AYARKUNNAM,
PIN - 686564.
SRI RIYAL DEVASSY, GP
2026:KER:4748
WP(C) NO. 39339 OF 2024 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:4748
WP(C) NO. 39339 OF 2024 3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.39339 of 2024
-----------------------------------------------
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 Writ, Order
or Direction calling for all the records leading to Exhibit P4
Order and quash the original of the same as illegal and opposed
to law.
ii)Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ,
Order or Direction commanding the 1st respondent to allow
Exhibit P3 application and exclude the Petitioner's 3.64 Ares
(8.99 cents) of land in Re-Survey No.111/7 in Block No.33 of
Ayarkunnam Village in Kottayam Taluk from the Data Bank of
Ayarkunnam Grama Panchayath.
iii)Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring that
Exhibit P4 Order is illegal and that the Petitioner's 3.64 Ares
(8.99 cents) of land in Re-Survey No.111/7 in Block No.33 of
Ayarkunnam Village in Kottayam Taluk is not a Paddy Land as
defined under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Act, 2008 and the Petitioner's property is liable to be
excluded from the Notified Data Bank of Ayarkunnam Grama
Panchayath.
iv)Dispense with production of English translation of exhibits in
vernacular languages.
2. The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order passed in a Form 5
application filed in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
2026:KER:4748
Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008. The writ petition is filed with
that prayer.
3. This Court directed the learned Government Pleader to get
instructions. The authorised officer passed Ext.P6 order recalling
Ext.P4 order with some additional grounds. In Ext.P6 it is stated that
this order is passed as directed by this Court on 11.11.2024. It would
be better to extract the order dated 11.11.2024.
"Admit. The learned Government Pleader takes notice for
respondent Nos. 1 to 3. For instructions, post on 03/12/2024."
A perusal of the same would show that there is no such
direction from this Court. The authorised officer has no jurisdiction to
pass an order like Ext.P6 reviewing Ext.P4 order. For that simple
reason, Ext.P6 is to be set aside. Moreover, this Court also perused
Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is not a speaking order. Ext.P4 is an order passed
mainly relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer. It is true that
the KSREC report is mentioned in Ext.P4 order but the same is not
properly considered. This Court in Vinumon v. District Collector
[2025 (6) KLT 275], considered this issue in detail and observed the
manner in which a Form 5 application is to be considered by the
authorised officer. I am not satisfied about the reasoning in Ext.P4.
Therefore, Exts.P4 and P6 are to be set aside.
2026:KER:4748
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions:-
(i) Exts.P4 and P6 are set aside.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to re-consider
Ext.P3 Form 5 application in accordance with law in the light of the
principles laid down by this Court in Vinumon (supra), as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Sru
2026:KER:4748
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 39339 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
06/07/2024 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICE,
AYARKUNNAM
Exhibit P2 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE
PETITIONER'S 12.17 ARES (30.05 CENTS) OF LAND
(5.38 ARES OF LAND IN RE-SURVEY NO.420/1-8 &
6.79 ARES OF LAND IN RE-SURVEY NO.421/5-4-2)
IN BLOCK NO.13 OF MARADU VILLAGE
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.5 APPLICATION
DATED 04/03/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/07/2024
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27/02/2023
SUBMITTED BY KSREC TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.RDOKTM/2740/2024-B5/K
DIS DATED 02/12/2024 STATED TO HAVE BEEN
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON EXHIBIT P3
FORM 5 APPLICATION
Exhibit P7 Photographs showing the trees standing in
3.64 Ares (8.99 cents) of land in Re-Survey
No.111/7 in Block No.33 of Ayarkunnam Village
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
No.RDOKTM/2740/2024/B5/KDIS DATED 02.12.2024
