Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 582 (KER)

Justin v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2026-05-20

P V Kunhikrishnan

body2026
JUDGMENT  : P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J. This writ petition is filed with following prayers: (I) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash Exhibit P-4 order passed by the 1st respondent and its all further proceedings. (II) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st or 2nd respondent as the case may be to pass fresh order on the Exhibit P-2 application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with Sec. 27-A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. (III). Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the 1st or 2nd respondent as the case may be to delete or exclude petitioner’s property having a total extent of 8.09 ares [20 cents ] of land comprised in Re-Survey 39/1-10p [ old survey 343/1p] of Kolazhi village in Thrissur Taluk in Thrissur Dt. from the data bank on the basis of the Exhibit P-2 application in Form No. 5 submitted by the petitioner and allow the same, within a time frame. (IV). To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents. (V). Issue such other relief this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (SIC) 2. Petitioner filed a Form-5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, and the same was rejected originally. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court, by filing WP(C) No.31469/2022. This Court set aside that order and directed to reconsider the matter. Thereafter Ext.P4 order is passed, again rejecting the Form-5 application. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner want to take out an Advocate Commission to submit a report about the nature of the land. Accordingly an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. A detailed report is filed by the Advocate Commissioner. 5. This Court perused Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 is mainly based on Ext.P3 KSREC report. The Observations & Conclusion in Ext.P3 is extracted hereunder: “The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2007, 2012, 2016 and 2022 for the survey plot. As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 39/1was observed as paddy land. Ext.P4 is mainly based on Ext.P3 KSREC report. The Observations & Conclusion in Ext.P3 is extracted hereunder: “The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2007, 2012, 2016 and 2022 for the survey plot. As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 39/1was observed as paddy land. The plot bordered by a water body in north east was observed under vegetation in 2007 data. The same landuse patterns were continued in 2012 and 2016 data. The data of 2022 shows the plot under vegetation with a building/structure towards south.” 6. In the KSREC report, it is stated that the plot bordered by a water body in north east was observed under vegetation in 2007 data. The same landuse patterns were continued in 2012 and 2016 data. 7. The Advocate Commissioner was requested to report whether the property of the petitioner is suitable and feasible for paddy cultivation. The same is answered by the Advocate Commissioner in the following manner: On my inspection, I found that the petitioner’s property is not suitable or feasible for paddy cultivation. The property is landlocked and is abutted by the Thrissur—Shornur State Highway on the western side. The surrounding area is highly urbanised and commercial in nature. 1 did not notice any existing paddy cultivation either in the subject property or in the adjoining properties. On inspection of the nearby areas, I found several commercial establishments, including a Bharat Petroleum petrol pump, beauty parlour, workshop-cum-welding shop, and other commercial and residential buildings. The property is surrounded by permanent structures and developed land, and there is no visible irrigation source, paddy field connectivity, or agricultural continuity in the vicinity. The existence of the State Highway, commercial establishments, and residential buildings on all sides clearly indicates that the area has lost its agricultural character. In view of the above physical features, surrounding developments, and absence of paddy cultivation in the locality, I am of the opinion that the petitioner’s property is not suitable or feasible for paddy cultivation under present conditions.” 8. The Advocate Commissioner also reported that, after inspection of the property, its boundaries and the surrounding areas, the petitioner’s property is having an independent or unobstructed access to a public road and also it is landlocked in nature. On the northern side of the said property, Bharat Petroleum petrol pump is situated. The Advocate Commissioner also reported that, after inspection of the property, its boundaries and the surrounding areas, the petitioner’s property is having an independent or unobstructed access to a public road and also it is landlocked in nature. On the northern side of the said property, Bharat Petroleum petrol pump is situated. On the southern side, the property is bounded by a private pathway, with a thodu lying adjacent thereto. On the western side, the Thrissur—Shornur State Highway runs along the boundary of the property. On the eastern side of the said property belongs to Vadakkeparambil Nazeer. The Commissioner also submitted that she had not found any paddy land or wetland lying adjacent to or in the vicinity of the petitioner’s property. The Commissioner also submitted that there is a thodu lying adjacent to the private pathway on the southern side of the said the property. The surrounding area of the subject property is predominantly developed and urbanised, and is occupied by commercial establishments and residential buildings. It is also stated by the Commissioner that, the neighbouring properties have undergone substantial conversion and development, and the locality no longer retains the physical features or environmental attributes associated with paddy land or wetland. Hence the Commissioner reported that in the absence of adjoining paddy land or wetland, and considering the surrounding land use pattern and existing developments, the petitioner’s property is not lying adjacent to any paddy land or wetland. The petitioner also produced photographs of his property. This Court perused the photographs also. The Advocate Commissioner also found that the petitioner’s property is approximately 70 centimetres lower than the State Highway. This answer was given based on a question as to whether the petitioner's property is laying 3 meter lower level than the road level. As far as the nature and type of surrounding properties adjacent to the petitioner's property, the following observations are made by the Advocate Commissioner: “On inspection, I found that the petitioner’s property is surrounded by developed lands. The immediate boundaries of the said property are occupied by a petrol pump, the Thrissur-Shornur State Highway, a workshop-cum-welding shop, and residential] properties. I also noticed the presence of commercial establishments, including a beauty parlour, along with other commercial and residential buildings in the surrounding locality. The area is predominantly developed and urbanised in nature, with extensive non- agricultural land use. I also noticed the presence of commercial establishments, including a beauty parlour, along with other commercial and residential buildings in the surrounding locality. The area is predominantly developed and urbanised in nature, with extensive non- agricultural land use. The neighbouring properties have undergone substantial conversion and development, and the locality no longer retains the physical characteristics or environmental attributes of paddy land or wetland. The surrounding land use pattern clearly indicates that the area has assumed a commercial and residential character.” 9. After going through the entire report of the Advocate Commissioner, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is unsustainable. The point to be decided while considering a Form-5 application is whether paddy is cultivated as on 2008 and whether paddy cultivation is possible in the property. A perusal of the Advocate Commissioner’s report would show that the paddy cultivation is impossible. If that is the case, the Authorised Officer ought to have allowed the Form-5 application. Therefore, the impugned order can be set aside and there can be a direction to pass consequential orders. Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner: 1. Ext.P4 is set aside. 2. The 2 nd respondent/Authorised O to reconsider the Form-5 application and pass consequential orders in the light of the observations in this judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.