[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Mr. Vinod Moorthy vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 23 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:5791
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. 2841 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
MR. VINOD MOORTHY
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O A K MOORTHY,ANUSH HOUSE, KADAVANTHRA,
ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682020
BY ADVS.
SRI.DENNY VARGHESE
SHRI.LIJO RAJU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682001
2 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHIBAVAN, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682301
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
NADAMA VILLAGE, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682301
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
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.2841 OF 2026 2
2026:KER:5791
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P (C) No.2841 of 2026
-------------------------------
Dated this the 23th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" i. To set aside Exhibit.P3 impugned order dated
04.11.2024 issued by the 1st respondent.
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any writ direction or
order directing the 1st Respondent to reconsider and
pass appropriate order on Exhibit.P2 within a
stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
iii. To dispense with the English translation of Exhibits
in Malayalam.
iv. Grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice.
v. Costs of this proceeding."
[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 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:5791
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 property merits exclusion from the data bank. The impugned
order is not in accordance with the principle laid down by this
2026:KER:5791
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.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P2 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
2026:KER:5791
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
2026:KER:5791
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 2841 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
13.03.2024 ISSUED FROM NADAMA VILLAGE
OFFICE
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM.5 RULE.4(D)
APPLICATION APPLICATION DATED 23.12.2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING THE
APPLICATION ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT, DATED 04.11.2024
