[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Dr. Joseph Anto vs The State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:6460
WP(C) NO. 2483 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 2483 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 DR. JOSEPH ANTO,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.JOSE T ANTO, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, KARANCHIRA
P.O., KATTUR,THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY SARATH
CHANDRAN P., POWER- OF - ATTORNEY HOLDER AGED 47
YEARS, S/O SURENDRAN, GRACE, THEVARUKANDY,
NANMINDA, NANMANDA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673613
2 ROSMY JOSEPH,
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O.DR. JOSEPH ANTO, THEKKEKARA HOUSE,KARANCHIRA
P.O, KATTUR,THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY SARATH
CHANDRAN P.,POWER - OF - ATTORNEY HOLDER, AGED 47
YEARS, S/O SURENDRAN, GRACE, THEVERUKANDY,
NANMINDA,NANMANDA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673613
BY ADVS.
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
SRI.P.RAJKUMAR
SRI.KESHAVRAJ NAIR
SHRI.ARUN POOMULLI
SMT.PREETHA S CHANDRAN
SHRI.ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
SHRI.ANAND REMESH
SHRI.ABHIRAM.S.
SMT.C.R.REKHA
SMT.GAADHA SURESH
SHRI.VISWANATH JAYAN
2026:KER:6460
WP(C) NO. 2483 OF 2024
2
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SUB-COLLECTOR,
DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN
- 680003
3 CORPORATION OF THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE,
MO ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI
BHAVAN, VILVATTOM, RAMAVARMAPURAM, CHEROOR, PIN -
680008
5 VILLAGE OFFICER, VILVATTOM,
VILLAGE OFFICE, RAMAVARMAPURAM, CHEROOR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680008
BY ADV SHRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6460
WP(C) NO. 2483 OF 2024
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.2483 of 2024
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Issue a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI or such
other writ, direction or orders, calling for the
records leading up to Exhibit P-8 and quash the
same;
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS or such
other writ, direction, or orders, directing the 2 nd
Respondent to remove the Petitioners' property
comprised in in Sy. No. 473/2 (Re. Sy. No. 1804/27)
of Peringavu Village, Thrissur Taluk totally
admeasuring 12.64 ares from the Exhibit P-5 Data
Bank.
iii. Declare that the Petitioners' property comprised in
in Sy. No. 473/2 (Re. Sy. No. 1804/27 ) of Peringavu
Village, Thrissur Taluk totally admeasuring 12.64
ares is in the nature of a paramba
2026:KER:6460
WP(C) NO. 2483 OF 2024
iv. To dispense with the filing of translation of
documents in vernacular language.
v. Pass any such order which this Hon'ble court may
deem fit and proper considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice.
(SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
the 2nd respondent rejecting the Form-5 application submitted
by them 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
2026:KER:6460
WP(C) NO. 2483 OF 2024
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
manner:
2026:KER:6460
WP(C) NO. 2483 OF 2024
1. Ext.P8 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P6 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
2026:KER:6460
WP(C) NO. 2483 OF 2024
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 27.01.2026
Judgment dictated 27.01.2026
Draft Judgment placed 28.01.2026
Final Judgment 29.01.2026
uploaded
2026:KER:6460
WP(C) NO. 2483 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 2483 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER - OF ATTORNEY
DATED 04.01.2014 EXECUTED BY THE
PETITIONERS IN FAVOUR OF MR. SARATH
CHANDRAN P.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
3489/2005 DATED 26.03.2005 OF THE
THRISSUR S.R.O. ENTERED INTO BY THE
PETITIONERS
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED
22.06.1995 IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION
BY MR. P.K. SUKUMARAN
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED
27.06.1995 IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION
BY MRS. RATNAVALLY
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTICULAR ENTRY IN
THE GAZZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.
DW4/1640/11 DATED 22.01.2021 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THRISSUR
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 08.06.2022
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
VILVATTOM DATED NIL
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30.06.2023 OF THE SUB-COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PETITIONERS' PROPERTY
