Kerala High Court
Manoj P.A vs Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 17 February, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 34724 OF 2025
1
2026:KER:14690
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 28TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 34724 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MANOJ P.A
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. ANTHONY P L, PAZHUNKARAN HIUSE,
VATTANATHRA, KAVALLUR, THIRSSUR, PIN - 680302
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR
SMT.P.K.MINIMOLE
SHRI.A.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
SHRI.BAPPU GALIB SALAM
SHRI.G.MOTILAL
SMT.SUVARNAKUMARI P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR,
CIVIL STATION RD, ANNEXE, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680125
2 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR,
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
ALAGAPPA NAGAR, VATTANATHRA, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680302
3 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
KRISHI BHAVAN, ALAGAPPA NAGAR, VATTANATHRA,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680302
GP SRI K JANARDHANA SHENOY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 34724 OF 2025
2
2026:KER:14690
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P(C) No. 34724 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Call for the records relating to Ext. P4 order of the 1st Respondent Revenue Divisional Officer Irinjalakuda and to quash the same order by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writs, Orders or Directions.
ii. Declare that the property of the Petitioner having an extent of 5.50 Ares of land comprised in Sy No. 67/2-1, situated at Block 29 of Aamballur Village, Mukandapuram Taluk in Thrissur District, covered by Ext.P3 application is dry/garden land, having all the characterisation of Purayidam and therefore the inclusion of 5.50 Ares of the property in the data bank is liable to be excluded.
iii. Issue such other and further writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st 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.
WP(C) NO. 34724 OF 2025 3 2026:KER:14690
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], 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, WP(C) NO. 34724 OF 2025 4 2026:KER:14690 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.
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 WP(C) NO. 34724 OF 2025 5 2026:KER:14690 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
GBG
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 17.02.2026
Judgment dictated 17.02.2026
Draft Judgment placed 18.02.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 19.02.2026 WP(C) NO. 34724 OF 2025 6 2026:KER:14690 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 34724 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
1327/2024/I DATED 18.06.2024 OF SRO NELLAYI Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.09.2025 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM-5 HAVING FILE NO. 14/2024/1019950 DATED 11.10.2024 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2069/2025 DATED 02.08.2025