SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
KUNNIL SAMUEL BABU – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 46534 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H, SMT.K.S.SMITHA, SMT.B.R.SINDU, SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR, SRI.V.ROHITH, SMT.AFNA V.P.
For the Respondents: GP SRI K JANARDHANA SHENOY, SMT.P.V.SARITHA VENUGOPAL, SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA

The court affirms the duty of administrative bodies to consider requests for land classification changes in accordance with statutory regulations.

Headnote:The judgment analyses the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner claims that a portion of his land excluded by the 1st respondent remains in the Data Bank. The court directs the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner’s request promptly. The only prayer is to consider the request for exclusion.

Result: The Addl. 4th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P6.

Table of Content
1. petition seeking correction in land classification. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court hears arguments from both parties. (Para 3)
3. court directs consideration of the request. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 1st respondent to take necessary follow- up action pursuant to Exhibit.P6 representation and to effect correction in the Data Bank entry by excluding the entire extent of 15.70 Ares comprised in Sy. No.112/12 and Sy. No.112/5 of land in Puliyoor Village, Chengannur Taluk, Alappuzha District, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents.

And (iii) To pass such orders or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner obtained Ext.P5 order in a Form-5 application filed in accordance with Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that, on perusal of Ext.P5 order, it is revealed that, though the total extent of 15.70 Ares was excluded by the 1st respondent, however the land comprised in Survey No.112/12 extending to 10.22 Ares is still being shown in the Data Bank entry when the petitioner has approached the Agricultural Officer for conversion of the petitioner’s property from the Data Bank. Hence, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 request. The grievance of the petitioner is that the same is not considered.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Panchayat.

4. The only prayer in this writ petition is to consider Ext.P6. I think that prayer can be allowed. I make it clear that, I have not considered the matter on merit.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction:

1. The Addl. 4th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P6 and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top