Sreejith vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 764 Ker

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 764 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 January, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sreejith vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 23 January, 2026

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                                           2026:KER:6047
WP(C) NO. 13385 OF 2023

                                      1


               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. 13385 OF 2023

PETITIONER/S:

               SREEJITH,
               AGED 30 YEARS
               S/O NARAYANAN, OTTELIMADAM HOUSE, KODAKARA
               VILLAGE, CHALAKUDI THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
               PIN - 680684

               BY ADVS. SHRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR
               SHRI.MUHAMMED ASHIQUE
               SMT.P.K.MINIMOLE
               SHRI.A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR


RESPONDENT/S:

    1          THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA
               CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR
               DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 680125

    2          THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
               REP.BY ITS CONVENOR, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
               KRISHI BHAVAN, KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN
               - 680684

               GP SMT PREETHA K K


        THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   23.01.2026,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                          2026:KER:6047
WP(C) NO. 13385 OF 2023

                                     2




                      P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                       --------------------------------
                     W.P.(C.).No.13385 of 2023
                ----------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2026


                              JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Call for the records leading to the issue of Ext.

P12 order of the Respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda and to set aside the same 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 2.83 Ares, split into 2 extents of 1.21 Ares and 1.62 Ares comprised in Survey Nos. 812/PT-4 and 815//PT-20, respectively, of Kodakara Village in Thrissur District is pucca dry/garden land, having all the characterisation of Purayidom and therefore the inclusion of the property in the data bank is liable to be excluded.

iii. Issue such other and further writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2026:KER:6047 WP(C) NO. 13385 OF 2023

iv. Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner filed a Form-5 application in accordance

with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules,

2008 and the same was originally rejected as per Ext.P7. The

petitioner challenged the same before this Court, by filing

WP(C) No.33300/2022. This Court set aside Ext.P7 order and

directed to reconsider the matter, as per Ext.P9 judgment.

Thereafter Ext.P12 order is passed. Aggrieved by the same,

this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused Ext.P9 judgment by which the

authorised officer was directed to reconsider the matter. It will

be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P9:

"7. This Court finds that the petitioner had filed application to change the nature of the petitioner's land on 12.03.2021. Based on that application, the Village Officer had conducted an inspection. Ext.P4 report of the Village Officer would show that the land of the petitioner is not 2026:KER:6047 WP(C) NO. 13385 OF 2023

waterlogged. There are no water sources in the land. Ext.P4 would further indicate that there are no water channels. The land is not cultivated with paddy either. When the Village Officer has given Ext.P4 report, this Court finds that the Agricultural Officer has given a contrary report and the petitioner's application stands rejected as per Ext.P7.

8. In view of the conflicting stands taken by the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, this Court is of the opinion that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall reconsider the matter, after making a site visit, if found necessary.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of setting aside Ext.P7 order and directing the respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the application of the petitioner for removing the land from the Data Bank taking into consideration Ext.P4 report of the Village Officer also. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months."

5. This Court perused Ext.P4 which is in favour of the

petitioner. But, as per Ext.P12, the authorised officer rejected

the Form-5 application for the second time mainly for the 2026:KER:6047 WP(C) NO. 13385 OF 2023

reason that there is an inspection from the office of the

authorised officer. When there is a report in favour of the

petitioner by the Village Officer, the authorised officer ought to

have inspected the property personally if necessary to

contradict the same instead of the sending somebody from his

office. Moreover, this Court perused the conclusion in the

KSREC report extracted in Ext.P12 itself in which it is stated

that the plots were observed under exposed red soil in 2006

data. I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P12 is to be set

aside and once again the Form-5 application is to be

reconsidered by the authorised officer, in the light of Ext.P7

judgment and Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT

275],

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following

manner:

1. Ext.P12 is set aside.

2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed

to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted

by the petitioner in the light of the specific

directions in Ext.P9 judgment and also in the 2026:KER:6047 WP(C) NO. 13385 OF 2023

light of the dictum laid down in Vinumon v.

District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

sd/-

                                         P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
                                               JUDGE
JV




Judgment reserved           NA
Date of Judgment        23.01.2026
Judgment dictated       23.01.2026

Draft Judgment placed 24.01.2026 Final Judgment 27.01.2026 uploaded 2026:KER:6047 WP(C) NO. 13385 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 13385 OF 2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit1 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID SALE DEED NO.

3478/1/2015 EXECUTED ON 19/11/2015 OF KALLETUMKARA SRO Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ONE OF THE PRIOR SALE DEED NO. 463/1/2006 EXECUTED ON 03/02/2006 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/08/2022 ISSUED FROM THE KODAKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, SHOWING THE DESCRIPTION AS NILAM IN THE REMARKS COLUMN Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 21/04/2021 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER ACCOMPANIED WITH MAHAZAR AND COVERING LETTER DATED 22/04/2021 ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT RDO Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID UNDATED LETTER ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT RDO Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 5 DATED 12.10.2021 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B6- 13340/2021 R DIS DATED 02/09/2022 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B6- 4176/2021(R). DIS DATED 03/09/2022 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID JUDGEMENT DATED 20.10.2022 IN WP(C)33300/2022 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK SHOWING SY. NO. 812 IN SERIAL

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN PROCEEDINGS NO. B6-13340/21(A) DATED 04.03. 2023 OF THE RDO IRINJALAKUDA