[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Silvester C vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 29 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 3267 of 2026
1
2026:KER:7205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 3267 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
SILVESTER C
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. CHINNAPPAN, RESIDING AT ‘NIRMAL', NILA
NAGAR, YAKKARA JUNCTION, YAKKARA P.O, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678701
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SMT.ANJANA KRISHNAN
SHRI.VINCENT C. J.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD HEAD POST
OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KANNADI-2 VILLAGE, KANNADI P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678701
3 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE KANNADI GRAMA
PANCHAYAT
KRISHI BHAVAN, KANNADI P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678701
W.P.(C) No. 3267 of 2026
2
2026:KER:7205
BY ADV.
SR GP - SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 3267 of 2026
3
2026:KER:7205
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 3267 of 2026
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Quash Exhibit-P4 order by issuing a writ in the nature of
certiorari;
ii. Direct the first respondent to delete 0.0283 hectors of
land comprised in Block No. 50, Re-Survey No. 22/63 of
Kannadi-2 Village, Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad District from the
land data bank for the area;
iii. Direct the first respondent to reconsider and pass
appropriate order on the application for correction of the
mistake in the data bank submitted by the petitioner afresh
after conducting a physical inspection of the plot and in view of
the relevant provisions and government orders;
iv. Declare that 0.0283 hectors of land comprised in Block
No. 50, Re-Survey No. 22/63 of Kannadi-2 Village, Palakkad
Taluk, Palakkad District is not a land to be included in the data
bank for the area;
v. To dispense with the production of the translated copies
of the documents in vernacular language; and
vi. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble
court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by
the 1st respondent rejecting the Form-5 application submitted
2026:KER:7205
by the petitioner 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
Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386],
2026:KER:7205
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.P4 order is set aside.
2. The 1st 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.
2026:KER:7205
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 Vinumon v. District
Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 29.01.2026
Judgment dictated 29.01.2026
Draft Judgment placed 29.01.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 29.01.2026
2026:KER:7205
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 3267 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER NO.
D.DIS.M.2617/05 DATED 21.03.2006 ISSUED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF
V.VIBINA.
EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION
CERTIFICATE (NOC) DATED 14.05.2013 ISSUED
BY THE KANNADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
21.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 6277/2024
DATED 28.11.2024 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
