[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Nabeesa vs Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna on 23 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:5954
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 3RD MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 28064 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
NABEESA
AGED 72 YEARS
D/O. MUHAMMED, CHOLAMUGHATH HOUSE,
MANATHUMANGALAM P.O, PERINTHALMANNA VILLAGE,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679322
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR
SMT.P.K.MINIMOLE
SHRI.A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
SHRI.BAPPU GALIB SALAM
SHRI.G.MOTILAL
SMT.SUVARNAKUMARI P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
SHORNUR-PERINTHALMANNA ROAD,
SHANTI NAGAR, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRIC, PIN - 679322
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN
PERINTHALMANNA, SANTI NAGAR,
PERINTHALMANNA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679322
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, PERINTHALMANNA, SANTI NAGAR,
PERINTHALMANNA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679322
WP(C) NO.28064 OF 2025 2
2026:KER:5954
BY ADV.
SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.28064 OF 2025 3
2026:KER:5954
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P (C) No.28064 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" i. Call for the records relating to Ext. P6 order of the
1st Respondent Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna and to
quash the same order by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or
any other Writs, Orders or Directions.
ii. Declare that the property of the Petitioner having a
total extent of 13.55 Ares, comprised in Sy. No. 99/4-2
of Perinthalmanna Village, covered by Ext.P5
application is dry/garden land, having all the
characterisation of Purayidam and therefore the
inclusion of 13.55 Ares of the property in the data bank
is liable to be excluded."
[SIC]
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.
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
WP(C) NO.28064 OF 2025 4
2026:KER:5954
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 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
2026:KER:5954
manner:
1. Ext.P6 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P5 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 23.01.2026
Judgment dictated 23.01.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 24.01.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 24.01.2026
WP(C) NO.28064 OF 2025 6
2026:KER:5954
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 28064 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED
21.10.1981 OF SRO, PERINTHALMANNA
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECENT LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 16.04.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 26.06.2025 ISSUED IN RESPECT OF
13.55 ARES OF LAND
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
NATURE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION IN FORM-5 HAVING
FILE NO. 25/2022/12782 DATED 17.10.2024
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN FILE NO.4522/2024
DATED 07.11.2024
