[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Radhakrishnan.S vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 23 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:5942
WP(C) NO. 42243 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. 42243 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
RADHAKRISHNAN.S.,
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. SUKUMARAN, PARIKKAL KALAM, KACHAMKURUCHI,
PAYYALORE, KOLLENGODE,PALAKKAD, PIN - 678506
BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SMT.B.ANUSREE
SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
SMT.MEERA P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION P.O., PALAKKAD - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD, KRISHI BHAVAN, KENATHUPARAMBU,
KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOLLENGODE-II VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678506
SMT.PREETHA KK, 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:5942
WP(C) NO. 42243 OF 2023
2
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.42243 of 2023
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ or order quashing Ext.P5 order;
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ or order commanding the 1st Respondent to
allow Ext.P4 application (Form No.5)
iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ or order commanding the Respondents to
exclude the property of the Petitioner having an
extent of 15 ½ cents in Re.Sy.No.280/12 in
Kollengode-II Village, from the data bank within a
time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the
interest of justice;
iv. Exempt production of English translation of
exhibits in Malayalam.
v. award the Petitioner the costs of this Writ Petition.
(SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
the 1st respondent rejecting the Form-5 application submitted
2026:KER:5942
WP(C) NO. 42243 OF 2023
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.
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
2026:KER:5942
WP(C) NO. 42243 OF 2023
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
manner:
1. Ext.P5 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P4 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.
2026:KER:5942
WP(C) NO. 42243 OF 2023
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
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:5942
WP(C) NO. 42243 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 42243 OF 2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOC.NO.3269/06 SRO
KOLENGODE, DATED 29-11-2006.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE KOLLENGODE-II VILLAGE
OFFICER, DATED 22-06-2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE KOLLENGODE-II VILLAGE OFFICER,
DATED 23-09-2023
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.5 APPLICATION
DATED 27-06-2022.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.8173 OF 2023,
DATED 25-10-2023.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF
SY.NO.280/6 OF KOLLENGODE-II VILLAGE,
DATED NIL,
