[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Mukundan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 27 March, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:28110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 12416 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
MUKUNDAN
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. LATE KRISHNAN VAIDYAR NADAPARAMBIL, EROOR,
THRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682306
BY ADV
SMT.M.C.BINDUMOL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB
RD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (DM)
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE TAHSILDAR
FIRST FLOOR, POLICE STATION ROAD, ABOVE SUB
REGISTRAR OFFICE NOTH PARAVUR KERALA, PIN - 683513
4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
ALANGOD KRISHI BHAVAN, THIRUVALLOOR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683511
GP SMT DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.12416 OF 2026 2
2026:KER:28110
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P (C) No.12416 of 2026
-------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2026
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P5 and
quash the same by issuing a writ to certiorari to
other appropriate writ, order or direction.
ii) Declare that the property covered by Exhibit P1
and Exhibit P2 are liable to be excluded from the
data bank and direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to
remove the property from the data bank.
iii) Dispense with the filing of translation of all
vernacular documents.
iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and 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 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
2026:KER:28110
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
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 impugned order is to be set aside.
2026:KER:28110
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following
manner:
1. Ext.P5 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd 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
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
AJ
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 27.03.2026
Judgment dictated 27.03.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 30.03.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded
2026:KER:28110
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 12416 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 . TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED
16/02/2009
Exhibit P2 THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN PAYING TAX
REGULARLY FOR THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY.
TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATE
20.03.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION -
DATED 26.08.2023
Exhibit P4 PROOF EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF THE FEE
FOR THE APPLICATION DATED 26.08.2023
Exhibit P5 HE PETITIONERS FORM 5 APPLICATION HAS
BEEN REJECTED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER AS PER ORDER DATED 22.05.2025.
