This Original Petition challenges Ext.P6, a Sub Court order in the final decree proceedings arising from partition suit O.S. No.762/2013, where a Will dated 26.05.2018 and a B4 agreement executed by Girija Kumar were adjudicated as genuine. The partition suit had culminated in a preliminary decree dated 09.01.2018, followed by a final decree application filed on 11.07.2019. After the death of one co-sharer (late Girija Kumar), the final decree applicant sought to implead legal heirs, while the 13th respondent propounded a Will. The petitioner contends that Ext.P6, framed under the caption adjudicating the Will’s genuineness, is inappropriate in the final decree stage and would upset the partition framework and the rights of legal heirs. The learned Sub Judge’s order was thus challenged as unwarranted. The High Court, while not reversing Ext.P6 outright, opines that the death of a co-sharer and related disputes should be resolved in separate proceedings and that the share of late Girija Kumar ought to be adjudicated in terms of the preliminary decree. The Court concludes by treating Ext.P6 as a supplemental preliminary decree, thereby preserving the petitioner’s right to appeal while directing the final decree court to proceed with final distribution per the preliminary decree. The decision relies on Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal (AIR 1967 SC 1470) to justify supplemental decrees in partition suits.
BA No.1585 of 2024, a bail application by Sivapradas V.U and Ajith T.S, accused in Crime No.1090/2023 of Aloor Police Station, Thrissur, challenges their continued detention under sections 448, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 read with section 34 IPC. The petitioners, arrested on 1.2.2024 after surrender per Annexure-2, have been in judicial custody for about a month. The prosecution alleges that on 11.11.2023 the petitioners attacked the de facto complainant and his wife, causing injuries. The petitioners’ counsel contends complete innocence, false implication, and that investigation is practically complete with recoveries effected; they are willing to accept stringent conditions and seek bail. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing investigation is still in progress, though she concedes the petitioners’ one-month custody and recovered material. The court underscores the primacy of the presumption of innocence and notes bail as a rule, detention before conviction as an exception. Citing Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Dataram Singh v. State of UP, and State of Kerala v. Raneef, the judge finds continued detention unnecessary since investigation is near completion. The order grants bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, and imposes conditions: appearance before IO on Saturdays for a month, no inducement or tampering, no new offenses, surrender of passports, and a mechanism for cancellation/modification of bail under law, following Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).
This is a Kerala High Court bail application (BA No.1522 of 2024) by Sreejith, the second accused in Crime No.157/2024 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, challenging his detention under Section 439 CrPC for offences including IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 427, 326 and 308 read with Section 149. The prosecution case alleges that on 30 January 2024, nine accused formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, restrained the complainant, and attacked him; injuries included a fracture to the right leg and damage to his motorcycle. The petitioner has been in custody since 31 January 2024, with the investigation largely complete and recovery effected. The petitioner contends innocence and asserts that inclusion of 326 and 308 in the FIR is designed to deny bail; he has no criminal antecedents and there is no strong prima facie case against him. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing a specific overt act and the likelihood of tampering with witnesses if released. The court relies on established bail jurisprudence, referencing Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh and State of Kerala v. Raneef to emphasize presumption of innocence, the general rule that bail is the norm, and the protection of life under Article 21 for undertrials. Concluding that further detention is unnecessary, the court grants bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including regular IO appearances, anti-tampering provisions, non-commission of offences, passport surrender, and IO rights to pursue investigations even on bail.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1492 OF 2024 This Kerala High Court bail application, filed under Section 438 CrPC, concerns T.M. Haneefa, the third accused in Crime No.111/2024 of Kanjirappally Police Station, Kottayam. The case pertains to alleged misappropriation of deposits by a cooperative society, with the society alleging that Rs. about 29.25–29.59 lakh were diverted by the accused in furtherance of a common intention, constituting offences punishable under sections 406, 409 and 420 read with section 34 IPC. The petitioner, who is the secretary of the Parathodu Agricultural Co-operative Improvement Society, contends he had no active role in management and that the first accused managed day-to-day affairs and misappropriated funds; the first accused later admitted misappropriation. The second and third accused are alleged to have operated the society’s bank accounts, and the investigation is at a preliminary stage. The IO contends custodial interrogation is necessary and that recovery remains to be effected. The petitioner had previously moved the Sessions Court under Section 438, which dismissed his petition but allowed surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The High Court cites Supreme Court guidance that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in exceptional circumstances and arrest is the last resort. On examining the facts, the court is not persuaded that exceptional grounds exist for pre-arrest bail and dismisses the application, while directing the petitioner to surrender within 10 days for interrogation and indicating that a bail application on merits may be considered thereafter.
This Kerala High Court judgment, rendered by a Division Bench, deals with a Constitutional petition under Article 227 challenging Ext.P8 of the Forest Tribunal Kozhikode in OA 44/2018 (IA 188/2023). The original application, filed under Section 8(1) of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, sought a declaration that the property scheduled in the original application is not a private forest vested with the Government. An Advocate Commissioner conducted local investigation and filed a report and sketch dated 01.06.2020 (Ext.P3). On 15.11.2023, the petitioners sought remand of the commission report and plan (Ext.P5 IA 188/2023) to call for a fresh report, arguing the Commissioner failed to identify the property and omitted crucial aspects. The Forest Tribunal dismissed the IA on 09.01.2024 (Ext.P8), labeling the request as an attempt to protract the matter without substantiation. The High Court criticizes the Tribunal for not recording how objections were addressed and for omitting a proper opportunity to examine the Advocate Commissioner or the Surveyor under CPC Order XXVI Rule 10, recognizing that such examination may be necessary to determine whether further enquiry is warranted. Relying on Laly Joseph @ Laly Sebastian v. K. U. Francis and other Kerala authorities, the court holds that a fresh commission can be ordered without ever setting aside the earlier report if cogent reasons exist. The petition is allowed; Ext.P8 is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to permit evidence, including examination of the Commissioner and Surveyor, and to decide on remittal if required for just disposal, while not expressing any opinion on merits. The judgment emphasizes due process and the possibility of a fresh enquiry to ensure accuracy in identifying the property and other relevant issues.
REGHUNATH P. MENON, the sixth accused in Crime No. 22/2023 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur, approached the Kerala High Court seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC. The prosecution alleges offences under IPC Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) and under the BUDS Act, 2019 (Sections 3 read with 21 and 5 read with 23). The accused were directors of Safe and Strong Business Consultancy Private Ltd.; deposits of Rs. 7,00,000 from the defacto complainant and Rs. 1,00,000 from her husband were allegedly received and not repaid. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 9 October 2023. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting forty cases against the petitioner and the ongoing Crime Branch investigation, with a writ petition seeking transfer to the CBI, arguing that bail would hamper the investigation. The petitioner contended innocence and lack of direct involvement in deposit activities, claiming false implication and arguing for statutory bail given the length of custody. After careful consideration, the court found continued detention unnecessary and granted bail. The order requires bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, and imposes conditions including regular appearance, non-tampering with witnesses or evidence, prohibition on offences while on bail, surrender/presenting addresses, and potential bail cancellation for violations, while noting a guiding principle from Sushila Aggarwal regarding continued investigation on bail.
Satheeshkumar v. Paul concerns a regular second appeal under Order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 CPC challenging the IV Additional District Court’s decree and the Principal Munsiff Court's original order. The appellant asserts right of easement by prescription over plaint B schedule way through plaint C schedule property, claimed to have been used openly and as of right for about 20-30 years. He contends that Settlement Deed No.1441/2013 did not affect the easement; PW3 supported long use; Exts. C1-C2 and the Commissioner’s reports reinforce existence. The defendant denies the claim, arguing that the B schedule way was not proved; the title deeds show only a private way up to a plot, and that the plaint’s references to prior use and a new pathway were either suppressed or inserted. The trial court dismissed on the grounds that suppression of a pathway in Ext A3 and the absence of proven use prior to 2013 negate the claim; the first appellate court confirmed. The High Court upheld dismissal, applying Mercy v. Agnus Maria E.J.’s eight essential ingredients for prescription and holding that the plaintiff failed to prove those ingredients. It also noted suppression of material facts as a separate ground to deny relief. The result is dismissal of the regular second appeal, with interlocutory orders vacated.
Facts and prayer: Mohammed Shaluf contends that his father, employed with the first respondent bank, sustained a severe injury in 2020 leaving him 100% permanently disabled, creating extreme financial hardship for the family. He sought compassionate appointment under the dying in harness scheme under Rule 188A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, by filing Ext. P11 (26-03-2021). Respondents declined, citing Exts. P12–P15, which clarify that compassionate appointments under the dying-in-harness scheme are available only to dependants of employees who die in service; the father is alive, though disabled, so the scheme does not apply. The petitioner relies on Rita Bella R. v. State of Kerala and others (2015) and Sivamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh to urge extension of the scheme to permanently incapacitated dependants. The Government Pleader counters that the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules require strict adherence to the scheme, and distinguishes Rita Bella R. on the basis of a different regulatory framework. The court also cites Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India for the principle of strict compliance with the governing scheme. After analyzing the facts and applicable rules, the learned judge concludes that Rule 188A does not cover permanently incapacitated dependants; the petition is dismissed. Nonetheless, the judge recognizes humanitarian concerns and directs the judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary for policy consideration.
This writ petition challenges an order (Ext.P4) issued by KSRTC provisionally promoting eight individuals as Assistant Transport Officers (ATO) in excess of the quota earmarked for internal transfers. The petitioners rely on KSRTC Regulation 2012 (Ext.P1) and the accompanying Notes/Rules to contend that Internal Recruitment must be 15% of vacancies available on the date of notification (as per Ext.P2) rather than 15% of cadre strength. They contend that Ext.P4 violates this, and seeks quashing Ext.P4 and mandamus to restrict appointments to the internal quota while reporting vacancies to the PSC for advice. The respondents argue that Regulation 2012, and the ratio fixed for recruitment (60% promotion, 15% internal transfer, 25% direct recruitment) must be applied to cadre strength, not to vacancies; Rule 5 and its Note (3) fix the method of recruitment and tie the percentages to cadre strength; Note (2) to the Special Rules prevails over Note (3) to Rule 5 when the Special Rules are later. The court analyzes the hierarchy of laws: explicit preference for Special Rules over General Rules in cases of repugnancy, and the coherence of Rule-making with long-standing legal principles. Citing Maya Mathews v. State of Kerala (2010) 4 SCC 498, the judgment holds that subsequent Special Rules prevail over general provisions. It declares that 15% must be calculated on vacancies available on the date of notification and directs reworking of the quota, with orders to be issued within four months and retains interim directions regarding vacancies. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1253 OF 2024; 1254 OF 2024; 1255 OF 2024 These bail petitions arise under Section 439 CrPC for three accused in Crime No.1495/2023 of Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram, alleging offences under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioners—Sakeer. K (34), Shihabudheen (30), and Nahas (31)—were arrested on 20.12.2023 in connection with seizure of MDMA totaling 51.2 grams from various locations in a hotel room near Kozhikode Airport. The prosecution claims a search produced 22 g from the first accused’s purse, 14.2 g from the second’s purse, 12 g from the third’s jeans, and 2 g from the room. The petitioners challenge the legality of the seizure and custody, arguing violations of Sections 42, 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act and Rules 3 and 10 of the 2022 NDPS Rules, including mixing contraband from multiple packets into a single cover, absence of proper inventory, and misclassification as MDMA instead of methamphetamine. The learned counsels for petitioners contend innocence and prolonged judicial custody. Prosecutors oppose bail, citing commercial quantity and likelihood of reoffending. The High Court emphasizes mandatory procedures under Section 52A and the 2022 Rules, citing Mohanlal, Yusuf @ Asif and related decisions to stress that sampling must occur in the presence of the Magistrate with certified inventory. While upholding adherence to procedure, the court grants bail on grounds of no criminal antecedents and overall circumstances, directing bonds of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties per petitioner and standard conditions.
Bail Application No. 1420 of 2024 This is a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC by Muhammed and Ismayil in Crime No.75/2024 of Varandarappilly Police Station, Thrissur, alleging offences under sections 341, 324 and 307 read with section 34 IPC. Accused were arrested on 5 February 2024. The prosecution alleges that on the night of 3 February 2024, in furtherance of their common intention, the petitioners pelted granite stones at the de facto complainant and his friend, with the first accused stabbing the complainant twice with a knife and injuring him, while the friend was injured by a stab in the back; the second accused allegedly struck the friend with a sword. The petitioners contend innocence, false implicaction, and that section 307 was added without substance; they also point to a genuine settlement with respondents 2 and 3 and the absence of objection to bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, noting ongoing investigation and grievous injuries, but acknowledged the petitioners’ custody since 5 February 2024 and recovery already effected. The respondents 2 and 3 support settlement and have no objection to bail. The court, taking into account the nearly complete investigation, resolve to grant bail with bond of Rs 50,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions including periodic appearance, non-inducement, no offense while on bail, surrender of passport, and reporting obligations, while citing a Supreme Court principle that investigation and recoveries may continue even on bail (Sushila Aggarwal).
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC 9679 of 2023) before the Kerala High Court, heard by Justice K. Babu, challenging an order in VC 3/2023 of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Kannur at Thalassery. The petitioners, Arun C (Village Officer) and Sudhakaran K.V. (Village Assistant), are respondents in a bribe case arising from an attempt to secure a legal heir certificate and Thandaper details for a land transaction. The 2nd respondent, Abdul Basheer M, lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners demanded bribes of Rs. 3,000 in exchange for performing official duties; a trap was laid and the petitioners were arrested on 24.08.2023 with Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 1,000 recovered from their possession. The FIR VC 03/2023, registered under Section 7(a) of the PC Act, 1988, is the subject of the quashing petition. The petition argues the allegations are false and the prosecution fails to disclose the offence. The respondents rely on FIR, statements, seizure mahazar, recovery mahazar and other materials showing the alleged bribery. The Court traverses the settled jurisprudence under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Articles 226/227, recognizing that quashing is an exceptional remedy and should not thwart an ongoing investigation; it cautions against weighing the evidence at this stage. On these lines, it holds that the petition lacks merit and disposes of the petition by dismissing it, allowing the investigation to proceed in VC 3/2023.
CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 & Connected Cases (611/2018 to 723/2018) This is a batch criminal revision order of the High Court of Kerala, passed on 12 June 2024 by Justice P. Somarajan, consolidating CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 and connected cases (611/2018 to 723/2018) arising from Suo Motu Proceedings under the Administrative Committee resolution of 18.09.2017. The revisions relate to orders of the Judicial Magistrates of Kollam, where Suo Motu proceedings were initiated, and concerns the legality and propriety of stopping proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The respondents include the State of Kerala represented by various police authorities and a number of accused persons in different St Nos., while the applicants are the Suo Motu proceedings per the Administrative Committee’s resolution. The court heard the connected set of cases on 12.06.2024 and examined whether the magistrate’s stoppage of proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. should be interfered with. The court relied on a Division Bench decision in Suo motu v. State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC Online 821), which discusses the application of Section 258 Cr.P.C. in summons-cases and the circumstances justifying stoppage. The order ultimately holds that the stoppage falls within Section 258 Cr.P.C., deserves no interference, and the revisions are dismissed/closed.
BAIL APPL.NO.1515 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Siyam B.S., the first accused in Crime No. 1383/2023 of Thampanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging cheating and misappropriation in a transaction concerning admission to a nursing course. The prosecution contends the accused assured the de facto complainant’s daughter would secure admission in a nursing program at Mookambika Medical College (Kulasekharam, Tamil Nadu) and received Rs. 3.5 lakh without delivering admission or refunding the money. Following mediation at the District Mediation Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, the accused undertook to refund Rs. 1.5 lakh by 31.07.2024, but failed to comply with the settlement terms. The petitioner asserts innocence, contends custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and expresses willingness to refund the entire amount, with a portion already paid. The State and the third respondent oppose the application, arguing the delay and breach demonstrate mens rea and cheating. The court invokes Supreme Court guidance that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted in exceptional circumstances and that such orders should not hinder investigations. After evaluating the facts and submissions, the learned Judge finds no exceptional ground to grant pre-arrest bail, and dismisses the bail application. The order directs surrender within 10 days for interrogation, after which a merits-based bail application may be considered; non-surrender allows police to arrest the petitioner.
The Kerala High Court hears OP(CAT) No. 170 of 2023 challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s 17 August 2023 order in OA 503/2022, involving a retired Income Tax Officer (Panicker) facing a departmental enquiry for disproportionate assets, following an earlier CBI investigation and FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Abkari Act. Panicker retired in 2019 after 38 years of service; his suspension in 2016 was revoked, followed by a memo of charges eight days before retirement and an enquiry triggered under CCS (CCA) Rules, including Rule 14(24) mandating timely completion. The OA sought stay of the departmental enquiry pending disposal of CC No. 1/2019 in the CBI Court. The Tribunal rejected the request, holding that departmental and criminal proceedings could proceed in parallel. The High Court, relying on Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana and the ratio in Capt. M. Paul Antony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (and Paul Antony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.), examined that cross-examining common witnesses in both proceedings could prejudice the defense, and thus modified the Tribunal’s order. The court directed that the department shall not examine common or identical witnesses until they are examined in the criminal proceedings first, with a provision that delays will not bar departmental inquiry. The petition was allowed with these directions, marking a significant correction in the balance between parallel proceedings and the right to a fair defense.
BAIL APPL. NO.1325 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Noufal Noushad, the first accused in Crime No. 113/2024 of Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged include 341, 323, 324, 326, 294(b) IPC and 394 r/w 34 IPC. The FIR states that on 14.01.2024, at about 21:40, the accused, in furtherance of common intention, attacked the defacto complainant with an iron weapon; the first accused struck the complainant’s face causing a nasal bone fracture, and the second accused also kicked him. The accused allegedly robbed Rs. 15,330 from the complainant’s purse. The petitioner has been in custody since 16.01.2024 (39 days). Counsel for the petitioner contends innocence, arguing the FIR does not attract the offences and that Sections 326 and 394 are inappropriately included to deny bail; investigation is complete with recoveries effected, and there are no criminal antecedents. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing ongoing investigation, though a wound certificate shows minor injuries. The court cites Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Dataram Singh, and State of Kerala v. Raneef to emphasize presumption of innocence, bail as a norm, and the right against indefinite detention. After considering the materials, the court finds continued detention unnecessary and grants bail on a Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties, subject to standard conditions and with authority to pursue recoveries if necessary per Sushila Aggarwal.
This consolidated order from the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam concerns Criminal Revision Case No. 611 of 2018 and connected matters challenging orders of acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrates in Kollam district. The petitions were brought as Suo Motu proceedings under the Administrative Committee’s resolution dated 18 September 2017, and were heard on 12 June 2024 before the Hon’ble Justice P. Somarajan. The core issue is whether a Magistrate can stop proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. in summons‑case settings and thereby pronounce discharge or acquittal even when the trial has not progressed to final judgment. The bench lays down the text of Section 258 Cr.P.C. and reproduces extracts illustrating the power to stop proceedings and, in certain situations, to discharge. The court relies on a Division Bench decision in 2023 Kerala High Court Online 821, which discusses Section 258’s application to Suo Motu proceedings and clarifies the grounds and conditions for stoppage of proceedings. After examining the present batch, the court concludes that the cases fall squarely within Section 258 Cr.P.C., and the magistrate’s stoppage of proceedings warrants no interference. Consequently, the revisions fail and are closed, preserving the acquittal outcomes and the current disposition of the case.
This is a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC by Amal Nair, accused in Crime No.2639/2023 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station, invoking NDPS Act, for alleged possession of contraband (initially stated as MDMA) near Ravipuram Crematorium, Ernakulam. The matter arose after the accused was arrested on 11.11.2023. The prosecution’s case initially alleged possession of 14.75 grams of MDMA; however, the Chemical Analysis Report (dated 18.01.2024 from the Regional Chemical Examiner, Kakkanad) confirmed the contraband as Methamphetamine, an intermediate quantity, altering the perceived severity of the offence. The petitioner contends total innocence, falsely implicated, and argues that there is no material linking him to the crime; the accused has been in judicial custody since 11.11.2023 and that the investigation is practically complete with recovery already effected. The Public Prosecutor acknowledged the chemical analysis; though citing two prior cases as antecedents, he concedes the analysis shows Methamphetamine and that the contraband is intermediate quantity, which would influence the Section 37 NDPS rigour. After considering the facts, materials, and submissions, the Judge held that the rigour under Section 37 NDPS would not apply, and thus granted bail. The order permits release on a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, and imposes conditions including weekly appearances before the IO, non-tampering with witnesses, abstaining from new offences, passport surrender if available, and a provision for cancellation/modification of bail under law, with reference to Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another.
CRL.RC No. 269 of 2018 & Connected Cases The Kerala High Court, in CRL.RC No. 269 of 2018 and connected cases, delivers a suo motu order arising from the Administrative Committee’s resolution dated 18.09.2017. The batch of connected criminal revision petitions challenges orders of the Judicial Magistrate’s Courts in which proceedings under Cr.P.C. were halted or where acquittals were recorded in summons cases. The central legal question concerns the power of a magistrate to stop proceedings in summons cases instituted otherwise than upon a complaint, under Section 258 Cr.P.C., and the conditions for invoking such stoppage. The court relies on a Division Bench decision in 2023 (State of Kerala and Another, 2023 KHC OnLine 821) to articulate the statutory framework: stoppage is permissible where the prosecution demonstrates (i) despite best efforts the accused could not be located, and (ii) the costs of securing the accused’s appearance would exceed the maximum fine prescribed for the offence. The proceedings in 2017 under the Administrative Committee resolution are treated as the basis for the suo motu action. The High Court ultimately holds that the jurisdiction to stop proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. lies with the trial court under the stated conditions and that interference with the magistrate’s order is unwarranted. Consequently, the revisions are dismissed/closed. The order underscores strict adherence to the prerequisites of Section 258 before stoppage in summons cases.
The writ petition, WP(C) No. 6684 of 2024, filed before the Kerala High Court by K. Ramanathan, challenges the Revenue Divisional Officer’s Ext. P-7 order rejecting his Form-5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Lands Act, 2008. The petitioner asserts that his land (approximately 4.71 acres in Sy. No. 36/1/11; 1.76 acres and 2.02 acres in Re-Survey Nos. 36/1-10 and 47/1-2, Kolazhy Village, Thrissur) has historically been paddy land and was wrongly placed in the data bank as nilam. He argues that Ext. P-7 is not a speaking order and that the 1st respondent merely relies on the Local Level Monitoring Committee’s view rather than independently assessing land status, with KSREC’s report indicating conversion prior to the 2008 Act. The court notes that Ext. P-7 does not discuss the KSREC report or detail findings; citing Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO, it emphasizes that an order under Form-5 must involve independent assessment and hinge on whether paddy cultivation is feasible on the land proposed for exclusion. The judge ultimately holds that the impugned order is unsatisfactory and sets it aside, directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the Form-5 application within three months, with KSREC report to be obtained if requested and considered, and directions for timely reconsideration and certification of the judgment by the petitioner.
