[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Raichal Varkey Umman vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 29 January, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 3378 of 2026
1
2026:KER:7211
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. 3378 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
RAICHAL VARKEY UMMAN
AGED 71 YEARS, W/O. VARKEY UMMAN,
CHENGILATHUVETTIL, KOLLAMKUDIMUKAL, VAZHAKKALA
P.O. ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021
BY ADV SRI.MUHAMMED SHAFFI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682030
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KOONAMTHAI,
PADIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682024
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN KALAMASSERY, KANGARAPADY,
VADAKODE P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682021
BY ADV.
SMT.DEEPA V., GP
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. 3378 of 2026
2
2026:KER:7211
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 3378 of 2026
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order, or direction quashing Exhibit P3 proceedings
dated 19.10.2024 in File No. 2203/2024 passed by the 2 nd
Respondent;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
order, or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to
reconsider the Petitioner's Form-5 application, in the light
of Exhibit P4 order and the actual ground realities, and to
pass orders excluding the Petitioner's property from the
Data Bank within a time-bound period;
(iii) To dispense with filing of the translation of
Vernacular Documents.
(iv) Allow the Writ petition with costs.
(v) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed
by the 2nd respondent rejecting the Form-5 application
submitted by the petitioner under the Kerala Conservation
2026:KER:7211
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 based on the
report of the Agricultural Officer. Eventhough KSREC report
is available, the same is not properly considered by the
authorised officer. 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,
2026:KER:7211
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.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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,
2026:KER:7211
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
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:7211
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 3378 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT- P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
DATED 12.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT- P2 TRUE COPY OF FORM-5 APPLICATION NO.
11/2024/924921 DATED 29.01.2024
EXHIBIT- P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN FILE
NO. 2203/2024 DATED 19.10.2024 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT- P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN FILE
NO. 3171/2024 DATED 06.11.2024 OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
