Kerala High Court
P.P.Mahroof vs State Of Kerala on 10 March, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO.37514 OF 2024
1
2026:KER:21549
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 37514 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 P.P.MAHROOF,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. MAMMED KOYA, DARUL MASOOD, MAITHRI
ROAD, THIRUVANNUR.P.O., PANNIYANKARA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673029
2 ABDUL RIYAS MAMMED KOYA,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. MAMMED KOYA,DARUL MASOOD, MAITHRI
ROAD,THIRUVANNUR.P.O., PANNIYANKARA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673029
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.SURESH WILFRED
SMT.ZEENA S.FERNANDEZ
SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION JUMA MASJID, ERANHIPPALAM,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673020
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF
WP(C) NO.37514 OF 2024
2
2026:KER:21549
KOZHIKODE CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, PUTHIYARA KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673004
4 ADDL.R4, DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR)
CIVIL STATION.P.O, COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE-
673001 (IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R4 AS PER ORDER
DATED 27/02/2026 IN IA.NO. 1/2026).
BY ADV.
GP - SRI. K. JANARDHANA SHENOY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.37514 OF 2024
3
2026:KER:21549
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P(C) No. 37514 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash Ext.P15.
ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash Ext.P4, to the extent it includes properties covered by Exts.P1, P2 and P3.
iii) issue a writ of mandamus any other writ order or direction commanding the 2 nd respondent to delete the petitioners' properties covered by Exts.P1, P2 and P3 from Ext.P4 data bank;
iv) declare that the properties covered by Exts.P1, P2 and P3 are not liable to be included in the data bank of Kozhikode Corporation;
v) exempt the petitioner from
producing the English Translation of
Malayalam Exhibits produced along with this writ petition and the petitioner further undertakes that he is ready and willing to produce English Translation of Malayalam documents as and when required.
WP(C) NO.37514 OF 2024 4 2026:KER:21549
vi) award cost to the petitioner;
vii) issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;"
[SIC]
2. The petitioners submitted a Form - 5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short 'Rules'). The same was originally rejected and, by Ext.P12 judgment, this Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Thereafter, an order was passed and the same was again remanded by this Court as per Ext.P14 judgment. Subsequently, Ext.P15 order was passed. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused Ext.P15 order. A perusal of Ext.P15 order would show that no local inspection was conducted by the authorised officer. But, there are KSREC reports. The same were produced along with a memo by the Government Pleader. It will be better to extract the observations and conclusions in the KSREC Report Nos:
A-172/2015/KSREC/008228/22,A-172/2015/KSREC/008229/ WP(C) NO.37514 OF 2024 5 2026:KER:21549 22 and A-172/2015/KSREC/008227/22 dated 09.01.2023:
"KSREC Report No. A-172/2015/KSREC/008228/22 OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSION The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2007, 2011, 2017 and 2022 for the survey plot.
As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 1/3A P1 was observed as paddy land. The plot was observed under fallow land/waterlogged with scattered vegetation towards north in 2007 data. The same land use pattern were continued in the data of subsequent year as in 2011, 2017 and 2022.
KSREC Report No. A-172/2015/KSREC/008229/22 OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSION The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2007, 2011, 2017 and 2022 for the survey plot.
As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 1/3A P2 was observed as paddy land. The plot was observed under fallow land/waterlogged in 2007 data. The same land use patterns were continued in 2011 and 2017 data. The data of 2022 shows the plot under vegetation cover.
KSREC Report No. A-172/2015/KSREC/008227/22 OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSION The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and WP(C) NO.37514 OF 2024 6 2026:KER:21549 different satellite data sets of 2007, 2011, 2017 and 2022 for the survey plot.
As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 1/2 was observed as paddy land. The plot was observed under fallow land/waterlogged in 2007 data. The data 2011 and 2017 shows the plot as fallow land. The data of 2022 shows the plot as fallow land with scattered vegetation.
5. From the above, it is clear that the plots were observed under fallow land/water logged in 2007 data. The Division Bench of this Court in Mather Nagar Residence Association and Another v. District Collector, Ekm and Others [2020 (2) KHC 94] considered the manner in which a Form - 5 application is to be considered when the property is shown as fallow land/water logged. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:
"22. Going by the definition of wetland, we are of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the characteristic features and requirement as is provided under Act, 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well as report of KSREC, the nodal agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is also significant to note WP(C) NO.37514 OF 2024 7 2026:KER:21549 that from the definition of wetland under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSREC is not disputed by the Residents Association. Merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. That apart on a query made by us, counsel on either side submitted that, the properties in question have access from the National Highway from Kochi to Coimbatore and by the side of Kochi Metro line, which are also admittedly developed areas with large number of residential, commercial and multi utility buildings apart from various educational and religious institutions, thus having no scope for any paddy cultivation.
23. However, the alternative argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the Residents Association is relying upon Ext.P6 and Ext.P13 revenue record filed in the respective writ petitions that the property was recorded as paddy field. Therefore, the petitioner Residents Association is not entitled to blow hot and cold at the same time contending that the land is wetland in contemplation of the provisions of the Act, 2008. The said aspect is also clear from the report of the KSREC. In that view of the matter, the contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the Residents Association that the property in accordance with the report of Sub Collector is wetland, cannot be sustained under law. Mere low lying or a fallow land can never be considered and treated as wetland as per Act, 2008, WP(C) NO.37514 OF 2024 8 2026:KER:21549 unless as said earlier, it is having the characteristic features as defined under the Act. That being the factual and legal situation, the contention that the properties in question are wetlands as per Act, 2008 has no foundation or basis. It is also explicit from the satellite pictures produced along with the report of KSREC that, in between the properties constructed with buildings is Kochi to Shornur railway line. Therefore, it is also evident that, there is no existing aquatic systems in order to treat the same as wetland as per the provisions of Act, 2008."
6. The authorised officer has not considered the above dictum laid down by this Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the matter is to be reconsidered once again.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:
1. Ext.P15 is set aside.
2. The 4th respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form - 5 application submitted by the petitioners in the light of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Mather Nagar Residence Association's case (supra), as expeditiously as possible, at WP(C) NO.37514 OF 2024 9 2026:KER:21549 any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 10.03.2026
Judgment dictated 10.03.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 11.03.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 12.03.2026 WP(C) NO.37514 OF 2024 10 2026:KER:21549 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 37514 OF 2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3878/2007 OF CHEVAYOOR SRO DATED 08.06.2007 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5129/2008 OF CHEVAYOOR SRO DATED 04.11.2008 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2158/2009 OF CHEVAYOOR SRO DATED 02.07.2009 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27-02-2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.5777 OF 2020 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C6- 749/20 DATED 18-01-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C6- 750/20 DATED 18-01-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C6- 751/20 DATED 26-01-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ALONG WITH THE FORWARDING LETTER NO.KKB 41/2021-22 DATED 05-01-2022 OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07- 04-2022 IN CONT.CASE (C)NO.2214/2021 EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25- 07-2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CONT.CASE (C ) NO. 2214 OF 2021 IN W.P.(C) 5777 OF 2020 DATED 26-07- 2022 EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
C6-750/20 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21-08-2022 WP(C) NO.37514 OF 2024 11 2026:KER:21549 EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22- 11-2022 IN CONT.CASE (C ) NO. 2214 OF 2021 IN W.P.(C) 5777 OF 2020 EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.RDOKKD/750/2020 OF THE SUB COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE DATED 20-01-2023