[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Yazar Arafath vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 21 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:5235
WP(C) NO. 19774 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 1ST MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19774 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
YAZAR ARAFATH
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O PAREETH K.M, KAVATTU (H), CHERUVATTOOR P.O,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.R.PRATHISH
SHRI.P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN
SRI.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD)
SHRI.AKHIL BABU
SMT.KRISHNA DAS
SMT.HIMA A.S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, NELLIKKUZHI KRISHI BHAVAN,
NELLIKKUZHI, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM - 686691
GP SRI K JANARDHANA SHENOY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:5235
WP(C) NO. 19774 OF 2025
2
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.19774 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Call for the records pertaining to Ext.P5 and quash
the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.
ii. Issue a of writ of mandamus or appropriate direction
to the 1st respondent to reconsider the Ext.P4
application of the petitioner, by considering KSREC
Report and remove the entry of petitioner's property
from data Bank within a time frame fixed by this
Hon'ble court.
iii. dispense with filing of the translation of documents in
Malayalam produced in the above writ petition.
iv. pass such other writs, orders or directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deems just, fit and necessary in the
facts and circumstances of this case.
v. Allow the writ petition writ petition with cost.
(SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
the 1st 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
2026:KER:5235
WP(C) NO. 19774 OF 2025
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. 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
2026:KER:5235
WP(C) NO. 19774 OF 2025
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. The Government Pleader submitted that there was an
inspection by the Revenue Divisional Officer and thereafter the
impugned order is passed. But, as per the averments in Ext.P5
itself, it is clear that the inspection is from the Office of the
Revenue Divisional Officer and the authorised has not inspected
the property.
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
2026:KER:5235
WP(C) NO. 19774 OF 2025
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 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
JV
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 21.01.2026
Judgment dictated 21.01.2026
Draft Judgment placed 22.01.2026
Final Judgment 23.01.2026
uploaded
2026:KER:5235
WP(C) NO. 19774 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 19774 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 09.07.2013 OF
KOTHAMANGALAM SUB REGISTRAR
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
25.04.2025 FOR THE YEAR 2025-2026
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER IN THE
NAME OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE OF
PETITIONER PROPERTY
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-5 APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
R.D.O DATED 26.09.2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 27.03.2025 REJECTING
FORM 5 APPLICATION
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE KSREC REPORT DATED
30.11.2024 OF THE PETITIONER PROPERTY
