Kerala High Court
Jose Joseph vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 10 November, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 19066 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:85664
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19066 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
JOSE JOSEPH
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. OUSEPH JOSEPH MUTHOLIL HOUSE, 49/1080B, CCRA 25,
CHANGAMPUZHA ROAD, EDAPALLY POST , ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682024
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.S.ARAVIND
SRI.E.PRAJITH KUMAR
SHRI.TINU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR CIVIL STATION,
CIVIL LANE, AYYANTHOLE THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
THEKKUMKARA, KRISHI BHAVAN, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680589
3 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE
RESPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEAR THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
WP(C) NO. 19066 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:85664
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SRI JANARDHANA SHENOY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19066 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:85664
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.19066 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
"i. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P4 order and quash same;
ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider the form 5 application afresh as per law within a time-bound manner, excluding the petitioner's property from the data bank, in the interest of justice; iii. to dispense with the filing of the English translation of documents in vernacular Language" [sic]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting Form - 5 application submitted by him under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules', for brevity). The main WP(C) NO. 19066 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:85664 grievance of the petitioner is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for 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 the statutory requirements. The impugned order is 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 WP(C) NO. 19066 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:85664 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.
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 law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal inspection of the WP(C) NO. 19066 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:85664 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.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 10/11/25
Judgment dictated 10/11/25
Draft judgment placed 12/11/25
Final judgment uploaded 13/11/25
WP(C) NO. 19066 OF 2025 7
2025:KER:85664
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19066/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 01/09/2024
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
31/01/2020
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER FORM 5
DATED 28/01/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20/06/2024 Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 09/08/2024 Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE LLMC DATED 05/09/2023 Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 19/07/2024 Exhibit-P7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 16/08/2024