[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Arjun Muraleedharan vs The Deputy Collector (Rr) on 23 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:5993
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. 2698 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
ARJUN MURALEEDHARAN
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. MURALEEDHARAN, RESIDING AT MADATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU,
PERINGAZHAKARA, THRIKKAKARA NORTH, HMT COLONY P.O,
KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683503.
BY ADV SHRI.RANJIT BABU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682030.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
ERNAKULAM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, K B JACOB ROAD,
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE OFFICE, EDAPPALLY,
KOONAMTHAI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682024.
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KALAMASSEY KRISHI BHAVAN, VADAMCODE P.O, KANGARAPADY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682021.
SMT DEEPA V, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:5993
WP(C) NO. 2698 OF 2026 2
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.2698 of 2026
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction
calling for the records leading to Exhibit P5 order and quash
the original of the same
ii. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or
direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P4 report and
quash the original of the same
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the 4th respondent to seek a report from
KSREC
iv. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to the 1st respondent/authority concerned to
issue an order excluding property from the data bank within a
time frame fixed by the Hon'ble Court
v. Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular
documents
vi. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.
[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
2026:KER:5993
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 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
2026:KER:5993
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 manner:
1. Ext.P5 order is set aside.
2. The 1st 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
2026:KER:5993
in the judgment dated 05.11.2025 in Vinumon v.
District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Sru
2026:KER:5993
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 2698 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT BEARING
NO. KL07021808619/2025 DATED 23.04.2025
Exhibit P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT BEARING
NO. KL07021865131/2025 DATED 23.06.2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
PUBLISHED DATA BANK OF KALAMASSERY
MUNICIPALITY BEARING NO. TP2-1640-2021 DATED
22.06.2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.1103/1/2025
DATED 10.04.2025
Exhibit P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.1538/1/2025
DATED 28.05.2025
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER DATED 06.02.2025
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BEARING FILE NO. 709/2025 DATED
24.03.2025
