[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sujatha vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:6415
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. 2947 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
SUJATHA
AGED 70 YEARS
D/O SARASWATHY AMMA, SARASWATHY VILASAM,
MANJUMMEL, ELOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683501
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.MAYA S. KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682030
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TALUK OFFICE, FORT COCHIN ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682001
4 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
ERNAKULAM, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER U/S. 2(XV)A
OF THE PADDY AND WETLAND ACT, CIVIL STATION
KAKKANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
5 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
2026:KER:6415
WP(C) NO.2947 OF 2026
2
ERNAKULAM, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683101
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ALANGAD VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683511
7 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHIBHAVAN, ALANGAD, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683511
SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6415
WP(C) NO.2947 OF 2026
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P (C) No.2947 of 2026
-------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction, calling
records leading to Exhibit.P4 and quash the
same;
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction directing
the 3rd respondent to allow Exhibit.P3 form 5
application of the petitioner within a time
frame."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the
3rd respondent rejecting the Form-5 application submitted by her
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
2026:KER:6415
WP(C) NO.2947 OF 2026
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 Court in the above
judgments. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the
2026:KER:6415
WP(C) NO.2947 OF 2026
impugned order is to be set aside.
6. The Government Pleader submitted that the property
was inspected and thereafter the impugned order was passed.
There is nothing to show that the Authorised Officer inspected the
property.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following
manner:
1. Ext.P4 order is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider Ext.P3 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
2026:KER:6415
WP(C) NO.2947 OF 2026
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
SSG
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 27.01.2026
Judgment dictated 27.01.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 28.01.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 29.01.2026
2026:KER:6415
WP(C) NO.2947 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 2947 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.6312/2006
DATED 17-10-2006
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
DATED 1-8-2025 OF ALANGAD VILLAGE OFFICE
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20-05-
2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER
NO.66/2024/163765 DATED 28-07-2025
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER)
