Kerala High Court
Sreedharan vs The District Collector Kasargod on 11 February, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:12992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 38497 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
SREEDHARAN
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. MOVVAL KANNAN, OLAVARA HOUSE, OLAVARA,
UDUMBUMTHALA P.O, THEKKE TRIKKARIPUR, KASARGOD,
KERALA, PIN - 671311
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS
SRI.JOEMON ANTONY
SHRI.ANTONY NILTON REMELO
SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ANJANA P.V.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KASARGOD
CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR, KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN
- 671123
2 THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
KANHANGAD
PUTHIYAKOTTA -BUS STAND ROAD, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD,
KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671531
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
HOSDURG TALUK OFFICE, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD,
KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671315
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
SOUTH TRIKKARIPUR VILLAGE OFFICE, MINI INDUSTRIAL
ESTATE, SOUTH TRIKKARIPUR, KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN
2026:KER:12992
WP(C) NO.38497 OF 2025
2
- 671311
5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICE TRIKKARIPUR, KASARGOD,
KERALA, PIN - 671310
6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR- THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICE TRIKKARIPUR , KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN -
671310
SMT.PREETHA K K,GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:12992
WP(C) NO.38497 OF 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P (C) No.38497 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" i) Call for the records pertaining to Ext P10 order and set aside the same.
ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, appropriate order quashing the Ext P10 order and allow the Exhibit P 5 - Form 6 application of the Petitioner.
iii) Petitioner also prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the vernacular documents produced in the vernacular language.
iv) Provide cost of the proceedings."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner, along with others are the owner in possession of 17.81 Ares of property in Block No.1 of Survey Nos.320/5APT 11 of South Trikkaripur Village, Hosdurg Taluk of Kasargod District. The property is not included in the data bank, but it is recorded as 'Nilam' in the Revenue Records is the submission. The petitioner submitted a Form - 6 application, and it was rejected as per Ext.P7. Petitioner filed an appeal against the 2026:KER:12992 WP(C) NO.38497 OF 2025 4 same, and the same was rejected as per Ext.P10. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused Ext.P10. After narrating the facts and contention of the petitioner, the Appellate Authority simply rejected the appeal, stating that after inspecting the property, it was found that it is water logged area and the property is not converted land. It is also stated that the property is situated in a low-lying area. Thereafter, the appeal is dismissed. This is not the manner in which a Form - 6 application is to be considered, and the appeal is to be considered. This Court in George Varghese V. District Collector [2023 (7) KHC 93] this court considered observed like this:
"5. R.12 of the R.2008 deals with the procedure for change of nature of unnotified land, as provided in S.27A of the Act 2008. R.12(4) provides that on receipt of an application under Form 6 as provided in R.12 of the R.2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) shall forward the application to the Village Officer concerned and the Village Officer, in turn, shall conduct an enquiry on the 2026:KER:12992 WP(C) NO.38497 OF 2025 5 application and submit a report before the RDO and R.12(5) mandates that the Village Officer shall also report whether if a change of nature of the land is permitted, it will cause any obstruction to the free flow of water to the nearby paddy fields, if any. The Rules further provide that if the extent of the property is more than 20.23 Ares, the report of the Agricultural Officer should also be obtained by the RDO as to the effectiveness of water conservancy measures that the applicant is proposing to implement in the property. A perusal of the Act and the Rules, 2008 reveals that the only aspect that should be ascertained by the RDO while considering a Form 6 application seeking permission to change the nature of the unnotified land is whether such change of nature of land will affect the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field, if any, and that such reclamation would adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land. A perusal of Ext P10 order reveals that there is no adverse finding by the RDO that the reclamation will affect the free flow of water to the nearby paddy field and whether it will adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops in the adjoining lands. In Ext P24 appellate order passed by the 1st respondent there is a specific finding that there is no paddy cultivation in any of the nearby properties. In spite of the said finding, the application has been rejected by Ext P10 order based on the report of the Village Officer that the property is lying three feet below the road level and there is water logging in the property and further that the property 2026:KER:12992 WP(C) NO.38497 OF 2025 6 has not been converted prior to 2008. The reasons stated in Ext P10 and P24 orders for rejecting the Form 6 application submitted by the petitioner are not contemplated as per S.27A of the Act 2008 or in R.12 of the R.2008. The reasons now stated are essentially parameters to be considered at the time of consideration of a Form 5 application for removal of a land from the data bank. The Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner has been duly allowed as per Ext P5 order after entering a finding that the property has been converted prior to coming into force of the Act 2008. After allowing the application in Form 5 and removing the property from the data bank, the rejection of an application under Form 6 for the reasons stated above is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. These are not reasons available to the RDO to reject an application in Form 6, seeking to change the nature of the land.
6. I am of the opinion that the said reasons stated in the impugned orders are not even valid for rejecting a Form 5 application for removal of the property from the data bank. The prime reason stated in Ext.P10 order for rejecting the request for change of nature of land is that as per the report of the Village Officer, the property has not been converted prior to 2008 and further that the property is lying three feet below the road level and that there is water logging in the property. The finding in Exts.P10 and P24 orders that the property has not been converted prior to 2008 cannot be sustained at all, especially for the reason that the RDO himself has passed Ext P5 order whereby the property has been removed 2026:KER:12992 WP(C) NO.38497 OF 2025 7 from the data bank, on a finding that the property has been converted prior to 2008. Yet another reason stated is regarding the low lying of the land and the water logging in the property. This Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others, 2020 (2) KHC 94 has held that merely for the reasons that the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during the rainy season or otherwise due to the low - lying nature of the property, the property cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land as per the provisions of the Act 2008. This Court in Jessy Abraham v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, 2021 (6) KHC 316 has also held that merely for the reason that the land is lying low and is waterlogged, same cannot be included as paddy land in the data bank. In view of the categoric declaration of law by this Court in the judgments cited supra, the reasons stated in Exts.P10 and P24 cannot be sustained even for rejecting a Form 5 application, much less an application in Form 6."
5. I think the appeal is to be reconsidered by the Appellate Authority in the light of the observations in George Varghese's case (supra).
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
2026:KER:12992 WP(C) NO.38497 OF 2025 8
1. Ext.P10 is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P8 appeal, and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in George Varghese's case (supra) as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SSG
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 11.02.2026
Judgment dictated 11.02.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 17.02.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 18.02.2026 2026:KER:12992 WP(C) NO.38497 OF 2025 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 38497 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A. NO.
1006/1970 ON THE FILES OF LAND TRIBUNAL NILESHWAR ON 08-03-1973 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PURCHASE ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, NILESHWAR DATED 16-05-1975 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 28-11-2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 03-02-2024 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION DATED 03-02-2024 ALONG WITH PAYMENT RECEIPT Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06-05-2025 VIDE FILE NO. 496/2025 Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14-05-2025 Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO. 19399/2025 DATED 27-05-2025 Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.7.2025