Kerala High Court
Sreedevi Keezhoth vs The State Of Kerala on 30 January, 2026
WP(C) No.23096 of 2021 1
2026:KER:7767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 10TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO.23096 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 SREEDEVI KEEZHOTH, AGED 86 YEARS,
W/O.(LATE) AMBUNHI ELLATH VALAPPIL,
PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT THE ADDRESS PALAKAT HOUSE,
NILESHWAR PO, OPPOSITE PATTENA BUS STAND,
HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA,
NOW RESIDING AT 15901, WILLIS WAY, WOODBINE,
MARYLAND, 21797, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAVI
VANIYAR, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.POKKA V.M,
RESIDING AT NEAR DEVI TEMPLE, NITTADUKAM,
HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE-671315.
2 THAMBAN ILLATH VALAPPIL,
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.(LATE) AMBUNHI ELLATH VALAPPIL,
PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT THE ADDRESS PALAKAT HOUSE,
NILESHWAR PO, OPPOSITE PATTENA BUS STAND,
HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE,
INDIA, NOW RESIDING AT 15901, WILLIS WAY,
WOODBINE, MARYLAND, 21797,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAVI
VANIYAR, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O.POKKA V.M, RESIDING AT NEAR DEVI TEMPLE,
NITTADUKAM, HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE-671315.
WP(C) No.23096 of 2021 2
2026:KER:7767
3 SEETHALAKSHMI ELLATH VALAPPIL, AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.RAVI VANIYAR, PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT THE
ADDRESS PALAKAT HOUSE, NILESHWAR PO, OPPOSITE
PATTENA BUS STAND, HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE, INDIA, NOW RESIDING AT 15901, WILLIS
WAY, WOODBINE, MARYLAND, 21797, UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER RAVI VANIYAR, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.POKKA V.M,
RESIDING AT NEAR DEVI TEMPLE, NITTADUKAM, HOSDURG,
KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-671315.
4 NARAYANAN ILLATH VALAPPIL,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O..(LATE) AMBUNHI ELLATH VALAPPIL, PREVIOUSLY
RESIDING AT THE ADDRESS PALAKAT HOUSE, NILESHWAR
PO, OPPOSITE PATTENA BUS STAND, HOSDURG, KASARGOD
DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA, NOW RESIDING AT
15901, WILLIS WAY, WOODBINE, MARYLAND, 21797,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAVI VANIYAR, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O.POKKA V.M, RESIDING AT NEAR DEVI TEMPLE,
NITTADUKAM, HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA
STATE-671315.
5 USHAKUMARI ELLATH VALAPPIL, AGED 52 YEARS
W/O.GOPAL NARAYAN, .PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT THE
ADDRESS PALAKAT HOUSE, NILESHWAR PO, OPPOSITE
PATTENA BUS STAND, HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE, INDIA, NOW RESIDING AT 15901, WILLIS
WAY, WOODBINE, MARYLAND, 21797, UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER RAVI VANIYAR, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.POKKA V.M,
RESIDING AT NEAR DEVI TEMPLE, NITTADUKAM, HOSDURG,
KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-671315.
6 KATOOR MUSTHAFA, AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.(LATE) MARTHANDAN ABDULLA, RESIDING AT
KHAIRUNNISA MANZIL, NEAR ELECTRICITY OFFICE,
CHOWERY, TRIKKARIPUR P.O., PINCODE-671310.
WP(C) No.23096 of 2021 3
2026:KER:7767
7 SUHARA.P, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.(LATE) KATOOR IBRAHIM,
RESIDING AT PAROTTAKATH HOUSE, KOTTAKKUNNU,
NAREEKKAMPALLY P.O., PILATHARA-670504.
BY ADV SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.
2 THE CHAIRMAN
LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY, PAYYANNUR P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670307.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT-670301.
4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
TALIPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PINCODE-670141.
5 THE TALUK TAHSILDAR,
PAYYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR
DISTRICT-670307.
GP- RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.23096 of 2021 4
2026:KER:7767
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.23096 of 2021
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 order dated 09.02.2021 issued by the 4th respondent, rejecting the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioners. Though Ext.P7 order was issued in respect of five applicants, only petitioners 2, 3, 6, and 7 are the applicants therein. Therefore, this Court is considering the challenge against Ext.P7 only insofar as it relates to petitioners 2, 3, 6, and 7. The petitioners 2,3,6 & 7 would contend that there is no independent consideration by the 4 th respondent regarding the issue involved. A perusal of Ext.P7 would reveal that the said order has been issued solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer
2. This Court in Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [2017 (1) KHC 394] has held that the Data Bank that was contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. Further in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala[2020 (5) KHC 490] has held WP(C) No.23096 of 2021 5 2026:KER:7767 that the Data Bank to be prepared under the Act is the Data Bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of the coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector [2021 (1) KLT 433] it was held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the Data Bank. This court in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222] has held that the most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSREC. This court in Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270] has held that when the petitioner seeks removal of his land from the Data Bank, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that the LLMC has decided not to remove the land from the Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer being the competent authority, has to independently assess the status of the land and come to a conclusion that removal of the land from Data Bank will adversely affect WP(C) No.23096 of 2021 6 2026:KER:7767 paddy cultivation in the land in question or in the nearby paddy lands or that it will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands in the area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable. Further, this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (5) KLT 432] has held that the predominant factor for consideration while considering the Form- 5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from the Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible.
3. In spite of these categorical declarations by this Court in a catena of judgments as cited above, the application submitted by the petitioners 2,3,6 & 7 has been rejected solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, not to remove the land from the Data Bank.
4. In view of the above, Ext.P7 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 4th respondent to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by petitioners 2,3,6 & 7. If the petitioners 2,3,6 & 7 submit application to the Agricultural Officer concerned seeking to obtain KSRSEC Report remitting the prescribed fee within a period of two weeks, the 4th respondent shall pass order afresh in the Form-5 application within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of the KSRSEC Report and take a final decision in the matter after considering the report as well as the relevant factors stipulated in WP(C) No.23096 of 2021 7 2026:KER:7767 Rule 4 (4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 and after conducting a site inspection. Petitioners 2,3,6 & 7 will be free to file an argument note incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by him to substantiate his contentions and the 4th respondent, while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the findings by this Court in those judgments cited (supra) and also the contentions of the petitioners 2,3,6 & 7 in the argument notes submitted by them.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sp/30/01/2026 WP(C) No.23096 of 2021 8 2026:KER:7767 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 23096 OF 2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED NIL.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 IN THE
NAME OF THE POWER HOLDER DATED 19.03.2021.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
EXECUTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED
19.03.2021.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
EXECUTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER IN THE NAME
OF THE POWER HOLDER DATED 14.03.2021.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECENT PHOTOGRAPH OF
THE LAND IN QUESTION DATED NIL.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE AVAILABLE REPORTS OF
THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE DATED
NIL.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN THE
CASE OF THE PETITIONERS 2,3,6 AND 7 DATED
09.08.2021.