[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Abdul Rasak C T vs The District Collector on 21 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 35211 OF 2025 1
2026:KER:5461
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. 35211 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ABDUL RASAK C T
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. ALAVI, POOLAKKAL, MARIKKUNNU, KAKKODI P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673012
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MUHASIN K.M.
SMT.FARHANA K.H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD,
ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
KOZHIKODE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD,
ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
4 THE TAHSILDAR
KOZHIKODE TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KAKKODI VILLAGE OFFICE, KAKKODI P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673611
WP(C) NO. 35211 OF 2025 2
2026:KER:5461
6 THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
KAKKODI KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE - BALUSSERY ROAD,
KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673611
7 THE DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 35211 OF 2025 3
2026:KER:5461
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 35211 OF 2025
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to
Ext P3 order and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction directing the 2nd respondent or the officer
authorized under section 2(XVA) of the Act to reconsider
Form5 application and pass orders afresh after obtaining a
report from the 7th respondent, KSREC with regard to the
nature of the property as on 2008.
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 7th
respondent to file a report before the 2nd respondent or
the officer authorized under section 2(XVA) of the Act and
6th respondent with regard to nature and lie of the
petitioner's property in 2008.
iv. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular
documents.
v. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this
Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case."
[SIC]
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
learned Government Pleader.
2026:KER:5461
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 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
2026:KER:5461
impugned order is to be set aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following
manner:
1. Ext.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to
reconsider 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 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
AJ
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 21.01.2026
Judgment dictated 21.01.2026
Draft judgment placed 22.01.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 23.01.2026
2026:KER:5461
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 35211 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
07.07.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE PETITIONER
