Kerala High Court
Leesamma P.J vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:13123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13091 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
LEESAMMA P.J.,
AGED 52 YEARS
D/O P.M JOSEPH, 7/136A, THYPARAMBIL HOUSE, S.N
NAGAR, MANNAMTHURUTH, VARAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683517
BY ADVS.
SMT.A.ARUNA
SMT.P.V.UTTARA
SMT.JISHA SHAJI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (DM), DISTRICT CT WAY
RD,KIDANGAMPARAMB, THONDANKULANGARA,
THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 688013
3 TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE CHERTHALA, CHERTHALA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688524
4 VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE,PAZHAMKULAM,
CHERTHALA P.O.,ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688524
2026:KER:13123
WP(C) NO.13091 OF 2025
2
5 PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
6 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
DEPUTY COLLECTOR (DM), DISTRICT CT WAY
RD,KIDANGAMPARAMB, THONDANKULANGARA,
THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 688013
7 SECRETARY,
KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE,PAZHAMKULAM,
CHERTHALA P.O.,ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688524
GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:13123
WP(C) NO.13091 OF 2025
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P (C) No.13091 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
” i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P5
as illegal, unjust and arbitrary;
ii. Declare that, land measuring 17 Are and
26 Sq. m having Thandaper number 16638 in
Survey Number 79 Block Number 80, in
Kokkothamangalam Village of Cherthala
Taluk in Alappuzha District of the petitioner
mentioned in Ext.P3 is liable to be
classified/treated to be converted as Dry
land.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the
respondents to classify/treat the land
measuring 17 Are and 26 Sq. m having
Thandaper number 16638 in Survey Number
79 Block Number 80, in Kokkothamangalam
Village of Cherthala Taluk in Alappuzha
District of the petitioner mentioned in Ext. P3
was converted as dry land.
iv. Declare that the land measuring 17 Are
and 26 Sq. m having Thandaper number
16638 in Survey Number 79 Block Number
80, in Kokkothamangalam Village of
Cherthala Taluk in Alappuzha District of the
petitioner was not erroneously omitted from
the data bank;
v. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to pay cost of this litigation as
assessed by this Hon’ble Court.”
[SIC]
2026:KER:13123
WP(C) NO.13091 OF 2025
4
2. Petitioner is the owner of an unnotified land, and she
had filed a Form-6 application in accordance with the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and Rules, 2008.
The same is rejected as per Ext.P5. Aggrieved by the same, this
writ petition is filed.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government
Pleader.
4. A short point raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P5 is
not a speaking order. It is also submitted that the Authorised
Officer has no jurisdiction to issue a direction to include the
property of the petitioner in the data bank while considering a
Form-6 application. The counsel also submitted that the principles
laid down by this Court in George Varghese v. District
Collector [2023 (7) KHC 93] are not considered. The Government
Pleader supported the impugned order. This Court perused the
impugned order. First of all, it is not a speaking order. This Court,
in George Varghese‘s case (supra), observed in detail the manner
in which a Form-6 application is to be considered. It will be better
to extract the relevant portion of the judgment.
” 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
2026:KER:13123
WP(C) NO.13091 OF 2025
5
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
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 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
2026:KER:13123
WP(C) NO.13091 OF 2025
6
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
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
2026:KER:13123
WP(C) NO.13091 OF 2025
7
cannot be sustained even for rejecting a Form 5
application, much less an application in Form 6.”
5. Moreover, the Authorised Officer has no jurisdiction to
direct the Authorities to include the property of the petitioner in
the data bank while considering a Form- 6 application. This point is
considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ramachandran.
N v. Salim [2025 KHC OnLine 1968]. It will be better to extract
the relevant portion of the judgment.
“8. The words employed under sub-section (4) of S.5
completely reveal the legislative wisdom whereby the
entire duty of preparing the Data Bank is vested with the
LLMC. There is no role stipulated for the District Collector
or RDO or any other officials in the matter of inclusion of
any property in the Data Bank. The duty of the Committee
is to prepare the Data Bank after collecting the details of
cultivable paddy land and wet land within the area of their
jurisdiction with the help of the map prepared or to be
prepared by the State Land Use Board or Centre – State
Science and Technology Institution on the basis of
Satellite pictures by incorporating the survey numbers
and get it notified by the concerned Panchayat or
Municipality. Such steps to be taken by exercising powers
provided under sub-section (3) of S.5, especially under
sub-clause (ii). From the bare reading of these relevant
provisions, it reveals that only cultivable paddy land as on
12/08/2008, where paddy is cultivated at least once in a
year or suitable for paddy cultivation, but uncultivated
and left fallow, is to be included in the Data Bank.
xxx xxxx xxxx
10. In the aforementioned circumstances, we are of the
view that merely on the basis of a complaint by a
neighbouring property owner and in the absence of any
finding with respect to the procedure followed, the District
2026:KER:13123
WP(C) NO.13091 OF 20258
Collector / RDO cannot dictate the LLMC to include certain
property in the Data Bank. While enacting the provisions
of the Act, no such powers have been contemplated by
the Legislature that empower the District Collector or RDO
to direct LLMC to include certain properties in the Data
Bank whereas specific powers are provided under S.27A
to remove certain erroneous entries in the Data Bank by
following prescribed procedures. No such circumstances
have been mooted by the District Collector while directing
the Principal Agricultural Officer and the consequent
direction issued to the Agricultural Officer to include the
property in the Data Bank as per Ext.P22. Therefore, we
cannot find any error on the part of the learned Single
Judge in quashing Ext.P22 by passing the impugned order
in RP No.184/2025. On the above findings, we cannot
sustain the challenges raised against the judgment dated
21/11/2024 in WP(C) No.20623/2022 and the order dated
27/03/2025 in RP No.184/2025.
The Writ Appeals are dismissed accordingly.”
6. In the light of the above dictum laid down by this Court,
I think the impugned order is to be set aside. The Government
Pleader submitted that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal, and
this Court may not interfere with the Ext.P5 order. Since Ext.P5 is a
cryptic order without considering any of the contentions of the
petitioner, and it is against the principles laid down by this court in
the above judgments, I think this Court can invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India with the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
2026:KER:13123
WP(C) NO.13091 OF 2025
9
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following
manner:
1. Ext.P5 is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/Authorised Officer is
directed to reconsider the petitioner’s Form 6
application in the light of the principles laid
down by this Court in George Varghese’s
Case (supra) and as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SSG
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 12.02.2026
Judgment dictated 12.02.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 17.02.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 18.02.2026
2026:KER:13123
WP(C) NO.13091 OF 2025
10
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 13091 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHIBHAVAN, THANNEER MUKKAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO. T.P. 1729/2020
DATED 19.01.2021 WITH RESPECT TO THE
CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY PUBLISHED IN THE
EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE VOLUME X NO. 201
DATED 19.01.2021
Exhibit P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL04020903579/2023 DATED 09.05.2023
ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
03.02.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER
FORM 6 UNDER RULE 12 (1) OF THE KERALA
CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND
ACT, RULES, 2008
Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.
1180693 DATED 17.03.2021 ISSUED FROM THE
VILLAGE OFFICE CHERTHALA
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
15.02.2024 IN WP(C) 5877/2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2024
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DOWNLOADED
FROM THE PETITIONER’S PORTAL IN THE
REVENUE DEPARTMENT’S WEBSITE
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE
UNDATED TIMELINE OF FILE MOVEMENT
OBTAINED FROM THE PETITIONER’S PORTAL
