OP(C) Nos. 2411 of 2022 and 2421 of 2022 These Original Petitions arise from two CMA appeals connected to OS No. 262/2019 in the Munsiff’s Court, Attingal, seeking injunctive relief to protect a bunk shop situated on the plaint schedule property. The first CMA vacated the injunction; the second CMA challenging the order directing restoration of a bunk allegedly demolished in violation of the injunction. The petitions (OP(C) Nos. 2411/2022 and 2421/2022) were heard; the First Appellate Court and the common judgment in CMAs 12/2020 and 24/2020 vacated the injunction and the mandatory injunction to restore the bunk. The plaintiffs, as petitioners, claimed tenancy/landlord-tenant relations based on a consent deed by Shibili, husband of the first defendant, asserting the bunk shop was located on the scheduled premises and protected by the injunction. The defendants contended that the bunk stands on property allotted to the additional 3rd defendant per partition deed No. 1479/2018, and that the original injunction order was passed without hearing this necessary party. The High Court held that the 3rd defendant’s non-joinder rendered the injunction order a nullity and that the absence of a necessary party means the order cannot bind him. Cited authorities were used to support non-binding effects when a party is left out. Ultimately, the petitions were dismissed, though liberty was given to seek fresh relief by amendment.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Criminal Misc. Ct) filed under Section 482 CrPC by six accused, challenging the proceedings in CC No.113/2019 arising from Crime No.1122/2018 (Kollam West Police Station). The offences alleged include sections 143, 147, 294(b), 341, 427, and 506(i) read with 149 IPC. The prosecution alleges that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, restrained the victim, used filthy language and criminally intimidated the victims. The petition centers on a settlement between the parties and their desire to terminate the prosecution. The petitioners’ counsel submits affidavits from the victims supporting quashing, while the victims’ counsel states the matter is settled and has no objection. The Public Prosecutor initially voices reservations about quashing merely on settlement but concedes the dispute has been resolved. Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and the associated legal framework (citing Gian Singh and Narinder Singh), the court acknowledges that the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences may be exercised in private, civil‑type disputes where the entire issue has been resolved. After reviewing the facts, affidavits, and records, the court concludes the dispute is private in nature and the settlement is acceptable, and accordingly allows the Criminal Misc. Case, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.113/2019."
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 14 November 2022 in OA No. 160 of 2019, which dismissed the applicant’s challenge to a disciplinary penalty. The petitioner, K. Karunanidhi, a retired Deputy Tahsildar, contends that three annual increments were barred with cumulative effect following a long sequence of disciplinary proceedings spanning 2010–2017, including unauthorised absence and other lapses. His career trajectory—from Village Assistant (1998) to Special Village Officer (2000) and Village Officer (2010)—and his eventual retirement in 2020 frame the backdrop for the dispute. After suspension and charges, an inquiry eventually led to an order on 12.10.2017 (Annexure A16) imposing the penalty; that order was set aside by Annexure A14 on grounds of procedural flaws, with directions to conduct a fresh inquiry. A subsequent inquiry culminated in Annexure A15, whose findings and the ensuing Annexure A16/A18 penalties were upheld by the Tribunal. The petitioner argues Annexure A12 (26/10/2010), which related to unauthorised absence, had already absolved him on that ground and that Annexure A12 should have weighed against later penalties. He contends that due process was not observed—no fresh memo of charges after Annexure A14’s order, non-compliance with Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Service (CCA) Rules, and lack of opportunity to cross-examine. The respondents submit that A12’s mandates were not satisfied and that the inquiry complied with due process, and that theTribunal’s exercise of supervisory jurisdiction was correct. The High Court disposes by upholding the Tribunal’s order and dismissing the OP.
This is a Kerala High Court revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, arising from eviction of a tenant from a petition schedule shop. The revision petitioner, Rajeev Thomas, challenges eviction granted by the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Changanacherry, under Section 11(3) on the ground of bona fide need by the landlords for their son to start an electronic shop. The landlords, M.J. Philip and Leelamma Philip, contended that the need is genuine and that the first and second provisos to Section 11(3) do not apply. The Rent Control Court, after recording oral evidence from PW1 (landlord), PW2 (landlord’s son) and PW3 (Municipal Secretary), and marking Exts. A1–A12, held the need bona fide and directed eviction in its order dated 20.10.2022, noting arrears had been cleared during the pendency so eviction under 11(2)(b) was not pressed. The tenant challenged this in R.C.A.No.14 of 2022 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which by judgment dated 30.11.2023 confirmed the eviction. The High Court, while reviewing under Section 20, examined the bonafide nature of the need in light of a line of apex court and Kerala decisions, and found the need to be bona fide, not a mere pretext, and not perverse. The revision is dismissed, but six months’ time is granted to surrender vacant possession, subject to undertakings and arrears payment conditions.”
The petitioner, Dilrooba Ahammed, challenges Ext.P5, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer rejecting her Form 5 application to remove a parcel of land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. She owns 18.62 acres in Panakkad, Eranadu Taluk, Malappuram District, and contends that the land is not paddy land or wetland as defined under the Act and that it has been wrongly included in the Data Bank. The RDO based his decision solely on the report of the Agricultural Officer, without obtaining a KSRSEC report or conducting an independent assessment of the land as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the Act. Rule 4(4E) of the Rules requires a report from the Agricultural Officer for paddy land and, in Rule 4(4F), verification by inspection or satellite imagery if necessary. The Court notes the lack of independent verification and references precedents—Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO—that demand independent assessment and a focus on whether removal would affect paddy cultivation. Consequently, Ext.P5 is set aside and the matter is remitted for reconsideration with a KSRSEC report, at the petitioner’s expense, within two months, with directions for the petitioner to obtain the KSRSEC report.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1549 OF 2024 This is a bail application before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (Single Judge C. S. Dias, J.) concerning two non-resident Bangladeshi nationals arrested in December 2023 in Crime No. 2845/2023 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station. The petitioners, named AALAMIN and JOSNA AKTHAR, face charges for offences under Section 447 IPC (criminal trespass) and Sections 14A and 14B of the Foreigners Act, 1946, for infiltrating into India without valid documents and trespassing into the high-security zone of Cochin Shipyard on the night of 09.12.2023. The second petitioner is seven months pregnant. The petition asserts innocence, notes lack of criminal antecedents, and argues that investigation is nearly complete, contending continued detention is unnecessary. The State opposes bail, highlighting that the accused are foreigners with no roots in India, that they entered a defence facility, and that the investigation is ongoing with potential flight risk if released. The court relies on established Supreme Court bail principles, citing Hussainara Khatoon and subsequent authorities to emphasize factors such as prima facie evidence, gravity of offence, risk of tampering with evidence, danger of absconding, and personal circumstances, including antecedents and societal concerns. After careful consideration, the court concludes there is no sufficient ground to grant bail and dismisses the application, balancing liberty with national security interests.
This writ petition challenges Ext. P7, an order rejecting Ext. P3 Form 5 application to remove land from the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, for a 5-cent parcel in Re-survey No. 158/41-2 in Tanur Village. The petitioner Abdul MujeeB.T and his wife claim the land is misclassified as paddy land in revenue records, obstructing construction of a home. The 1st respondent dismissed the Form 5 application on the basis of a KSREC report and the Local Level Monitoring Committee’s non-removal decision, but the order Ext. P7 is not a speaking order and fails to reflect independent evaluation of the land’s status. The court cites Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer to emphasize that the RDO must independently assess whether removal from the Data Bank will affect paddy cultivation or wetlands, and that reliance solely on committee findings is insufficient. The petition is allowed; Ext. P7 is set aside, with directions to the RDO to reconsider Form 5 within three months, consider KSREC inputs if available, and permit KSREC report submission within two weeks. The petitioner must present certified copies for compliance; the court’s decision also directs procedural clarifications under the Act and Rules.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P2, an order of confiscation of a motor vehicle, the Maruthi Swift VDI (KL-40/J-8778), under the Abkari Act, and Ext.P4, the Appellate Authority’s confirmation of that confiscation. The petitioner, Silvy Sunny, contends innocence and asserts entitlement to the protection of Section 67C(2) of the Abkari Act, which provides that there shall be no confiscation where the owner or his agent proves that they took reasonable precautions to prevent use of the vehicle for Abkari offences. The facts reveal that on 1.12.2014 the car, allegedly used by the petitioner’s brother, was found with 11 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in Kanakachanda, Perumbavoor; the brother was arrested under Sections 55(a) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act for possession and sale of liquor during a prohibited period. The vehicle was seized and released on bond under the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s directions; subsequently, proceedings under Section 67B led to confiscation (Ext.P2) and the appellate order (Ext.P4) confirming it. The Petitioner argues non‑issuance of hearing prior to Ext.P2 and cites Navaru Swapna Reddy to stress that confiscation is discretionary and must be exercised with care. The Government Pleader maintains that confiscation can be ordered where the vehicle is used with the owner’s knowledge and relies on prior Division Bench authorities. The Court ultimately sets aside Ext.P4 and directs fresh consideration of Ext.P3 appeals in light of Navaru Swapna Reddy, with opportunities of hearing, and to pass fresh orders within three months, disposing of the petition accordingly.
This is a bail application by the third accused in Crime No.1205/2023 of Narakkal Police Station, Ernakulam, under Sections 420, 468 read with 34 IPC and Sections 10 and 24(I)(b) of the Immigration Act, 1983. The applicant, Lalkrishna E.A., was arrested on 9 February 2023 along with two others. The prosecution’s case is that, in furtherance of a common plan with accused 1 and 2, the trio cheated the husband of the de facto complainant by promising employment in France and by issuing a fake visa, leading to the husband’s interception by emigration authorities in Delhi; part of the misappropriated funds have been recovered, with the accused allegedly receiving portions of the amount. The petitioner contends his innocence and argues that the first accused has already been granted bail by the Sessions Court and that investigation is practically complete with recoveries effected. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing there is a specific overt act and that release could jeopardize the ongoing inquiry. The High Court, after considering custodial duration (since 9.2.2023), completed investigation, recovery, and co-accused’s bail status, grants bail on a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, imposing conditions including regular appearance, no tampering with witnesses, surrender of passport, and reporting requirements, citing Sushila Aggarwal for allowing IO investigations even on bail.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case in which the accused Alex George seeks to quash the proceedings in CC No.1076/2016 arising from Crime No.1479/2013 of Palluruthy Police Station, currently pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam. The petitioner contends that Annexure-B final report, which charges offences under IPC Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (hurt), 294(b) (obscene acts or words), and 354A (sexual harassment), discloses no prima facie offence against him. He argues that he purchased the Kent Paradise flat including exclusive car parking area marked D6, as shown in Annexure-C, and the area D6 is meant for his exclusive use; photographs and scene mahazar (Annexure-D) indicate the incident occurred within this car parking space. The 2nd respondent allegedly tried to pass through a narrow passage, the petitioner requested her to use a common area, and the incident involved breaking of window panes. The petitioner asserts that the allegations are framed by extraneous disputes over unauthorized construction and that the investigation does not establish any offence, particularly as the parking space is exclusive to the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor submits that the contentions are matters of evidence for the trial court, and the court should not interfere. The judge examines the obscenity standard, cites Avinash and Sangeetha Lakshmana, and ultimately holds that no offence is made out, allowing the petition and quashing all further proceedings.
On 27 February 2024, the Kerala High Court heard WP(C) No. 7577 of 2024, a writ petition filed by Baby challenging Ext.P4, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) that rejected her Form 5 application to remove land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner owns 6.35 Ares in Kalady Village, Ernakulam, and contends the property is not Paddy land or wetland and was wrongly included in the Data Bank. Ext.P3 was the Form 5 application; Ext.P4, dated 17.04.2023, refused removal solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report and a Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) finding that the land housed a metal company and is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The petitioner argues the RDO failed to independently assess the land’s nature as on the Act’s date, and that removal decisions cannot rest only on AO and LLMC reports, citing Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO to emphasize independent assessment and consideration of the land’s status as of the Act’s date and its suitability for cultivation. The Court agrees Ext.P4 is unsustainable for lack of independent assessment and sets it aside, directing the RDO to reconsider Ext.P3 in light of a KSRSEC report at the petitioner’s expense within two months, with the petitioner also to obtain the KSRSEC report within two weeks. The petition is disposed of with these directions.
Sumahiya M.M., a resident of Ernakulam district, challenged the Marampally Service Co-operative Bank Ltd’s recruitment for six posts (Salesman, Peon, Night Watchman, Part-time Sweeper, etc.) in W.P.(C) No.36567 of 2023. She alleged that on 12.12.2022 a notification was issued for six posts and that the Board had already fixed appointments, despite the notification, with the petitioner learning of pre-determined selections. On 30.12.2022 she submitted Ext. P3 to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies seeking an enquiry into the allegations, and also approached the Joint Registrar (Ext. P3) and the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (Ext. P5). Respondent authorities directed the Board to conduct the process via an approved agency. However, respondents 5 and 6 later conducted a written examination (10.02.2024) and an oral examination (21.02.2024), published a ranked list (23.02.2024), and the appointees joined on 26.02.2024. The petitioner contended that the Board and Secretary received bribes (allegedly Rs.10 lakhs each) and that the process was a camouflage. The petition sought mandamus to direct enquiries (Exhibits P4 and P5) and to restrain further action pending processing. Respondents argued no initial appointment had occurred and asserted transparency in the process. The court ultimately held that an enquiry was necessary and that Section 17A would not bar it, directing a time-bound enquiry by the VACB (Respondent 2). The writ petition was allowed.
The petitioner Lithin Thampy challenges Exts. P1, P5, P10, P11, which concluded that he and his family do not belong to Hindu Sambava, a Scheduled Caste, for admission under the SC quota in 2018-19. The matter began when KIRTADS was asked to verify his caste; the report dated 17.08.2018 noted that the petitioner's father, T.J. Thampi, had reconverted to Hinduism in 1994 and that the family had socialised as Christians, with the maternal grandfather and others connected to Sambava Christian lineage. The Screening Committee rejected the claim and the Government issued Ext. P11 on 22.10.2019 declaring that the petitioner and his family were not SC. The petitioner contends that evidence shows the paternal grandfather and maternal grandfather belonged to Sambava, and that reconversion to Hinduism, with acceptance by the community, should restore SC status, citing Indira v. State Kerala (Full Bench) and Manu KP and Jibin C. Baby. The Government and agencies did not provide copies of the KIRTADS report and ignored inter-caste lineage and intermarriage benefits. The court relied on three Supreme Court decisions, including Mohan Rao, Anbalagan, and Manu, holding that caste identity, reconversion, and community acceptance must be established with clear evidence. The writ petition is allowed; Exts. P1, P5, P10, P11 are quashed; the petitioner is declared to belong to Hindu Sambava Scheduled Caste and entitled to the benefits of the caste.
CRL.RC 611/2018 (and connected Nos. 612/2018, 613/2018, 617/2018, 618/2018, 620/2018, 621/2018, 623/2018, 624/2018, 626/2018, 630/2018, 639/2018, 643/2018, 648/2018, 649/2018, 654/2018, 659/2018, 660/2018, 663/2018, 665/2018, 669/2018, 675/2018, 679/2018, 680/2018, 683/2018, 684/2018, 685/2018, 687/2018, 688/2018, 691/2018, 692/2018, 693/2018, 694/2018, 695/2018, 696/2018, 698/2018, 702/2018, 703/2018, 704/2018, 708/2018, 709/2018, 711/2018, 712/2018, 713/2018, 716/2018, 719/2018, 721/2018, 722/2018, 723/2018) These connected criminal revision petitions arise from Suo Motu proceedings initiated under the Administrative Committee’s resolution dated 18 September 2017, challenging orders of acquittal in numerous criminal cases registered at Kollam under various ST numbers. The High Court, presided by Justice P. Somarajan, heard the matters on 12 June 2024 with numerous connected cases, and delivered a common order addressing the scope of the Magistrate’s power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The core issue is whether the magistrate properly exercised the power to stop proceedings in summons cases, after evidence of principal witnesses had been recorded, when the prosecution cannot secure the presence of the accused and the costs of securing attendance would exceed the maximum fine. The court reiterates the settled position, citing Division Bench authority in Suo motu v. State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC Online 821), which approves stoppage in such circumstances. On this basis, the court finds that the cases fall squarely within Section 258 Cr.P.C. and that interference with the magistrate’s discretionary stoppage is unwarranted. Accordingly, the batch of revisions is dismissed and closed, reinforcing the jurisprudence that Section 258 provides a legitimate remedy to terminate futile proceedings in summons cases. The decision underscores efficiency in justice and the proper exercise of statutory powers under Cr.P.C.
The petitioner, Manoj T.K., the accused in Crime No.231/2022 of Payyannur Police Station, Kannur, challenges the Fast Track Special Court, Thaliparamba's proceedings in SC 392/2022 (POCSO matter), specifically the recording of PW1’s examination-in-chief in his absence. The court had framed charges under IPC sections including 354A(1), 354B, 354D(1)(i), 511, 376 and POCSO provisions (Sections 10 read with Section 9(f)(l)(p) and Section 12 read with Section 11(iv)). The petitioner argued that Section 273 Cr.P.C. mandates recording evidence in the presence of the accused, and that witnesses cannot be examined without his presence unless personal attendance is dispensed with under Sections 299 or 317 Cr.P.C. The State contended that Section 273 permits recording in the absence of the accused when attendance is dispensed with, with the presence of counsel, citing Bhaskar Industries Ltd. and other authorities. The Kerala High Court, after reviewing the statutory scheme and precedents, held that although the normal rule requires presence of the accused, Section 273’s latter part allows recording in the absence of the accused when personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of the pleader. The petition is dismissed, with the court noting that exceptions to Section 273 are not limited to Sections 299/317, and emphasizing that evidence can be recorded in the absence of the accused where counsel is present. The decision clarifies the scope of Section 273 Cr.P.C in such intermediate circumstances.
BAIL APPL.NO.1512 OF 2024 This bail application, filed under Section 438 CrPC, concerns Siyam B.S., the first accused in Crime No.1381/2023 of Thampanoor Police Station (Thiruvananthapuram), charged with offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The prosecution alleges that the accused promised admission for the de facto complainant’s daughter to Yenepoya College, Mangalore, and collected Rs.50,000 but failed to secure admission or refund the amount. The matter was referred to mediation, and a Memorandum of Settlement required the accused to refund Rs.59,000 by 15 May 2024; however, this amount was not paid. The petitioner asserted innocence, contended custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and that he had already paid a portion of the amount via mediation and was willing to pay the rest. The State and the third respondent contended that the accused had cheated the de facto complainant, citing non-compliance with the mediation agreement as evidence of mens rea. The court referred to Supreme Court guidance that anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 CrPC is an extraordinary remedy to be granted in exceptional circumstances, not as a routine rule. After a careful appraisal of facts, the court found no exceptional ground to grant pre-arrest bail. It dismissed the bail application but directed surrender within 10 days for interrogation; upon surrender, the jurisdictional court may consider the bail application on merits. If the petitioner fails to surrender, the IO may arrest as if no order exists.
The writ petition concerns a family transaction where the petitioner, P.K. Riyas, asserts co-ownership rights over properties described in Ext. P1, a registered gift deed dated 10.04.2007 executed by the 4th respondent (donor) in favor of the donees. The gift deed records delivery and acceptance, with possession handed over to the donees. The 4th respondent later executed Ext. P3, a cancellation deed, attempting to cancel Ext. P1 unilaterally after the gift had been delivered and accepted. The petitioner contends Ext. P3 is void ab initio because unilateral cancellation after delivery contravenes established law; the proper recourse to challenge or unwind a completed gift is a civil suit, not unilateral cancellation. The 2nd respondent initially refused to accept land revenue in the names of the donees, and Ext. P2 is a declaration cited by the respondents; the petition seeks quashing Ext. P3 and mandamus to have land revenue remitted to the donees in Ext. P1. The court references Daulat Singh Dead through Lrs. v. State of Rajasthan (2021) 3 SCC 459 to support that a completed gift transfers title upon delivery, and Pavakkal Noble John v. Kerala State (2010) 3 KHC 879 to emphasize that unilateral cancellation of a document is not permissible. The writ petition is disposed with directions to ignore Ext. P3 and to accept land revenue in the names of the donees as per Ext. P1.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1308 OF 2024 This bail petition under Section 438 CrPC concerns Babu P.L., the sole accused in Crime No.713/2023 of the Perumpetty Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The prosecution accuses the petitioner of offences including 294(b) (obscene words), 323 (hurt), 332 (hurt while discharging public duties), 353 (assault or use of criminal force against public servant) and 427 (mischief) arising from an incident on 4 December 2023, when police officers and civil staff accompanying the defacto-complainant allegedly went to the accused’s residence to investigate a complaint by his estranged wife. The petitioner’s counsel contends innocence and alleges false involvement in a vendetta, arguing that the injured sustained grievous hurt, that Annexure A2 FIR reveals falsity, and that the accused has previously been granted bail in a spurious case; custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is planned. In opposition, the Public Prosecutor asserts that the victim officers suffered injuries as shown in the wound certificates; investigation is at an early stage and custodial interrogation is essential; granting anticipatory bail would jeopardize the investigation. The court notes Supreme Court authority emphasizing that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in exceptional circumstances. After examining the material, including the injury certificates and the nascent stage of investigation, the judge declines pre-arrest bail, holding no exceptional grounds. The bail application is dismissed, with a conditional stand-by: surrender within one week, be subjected to interrogation, and subsequently proceed with a regular bail application if desired; otherwise, arrest may proceed.
Milton Das v. State of Kerala concerns a bail application under Section 439 CrPC in NDPS case relating to 1.3 kg of ganja seized for sale near Palappooru junction, Kalliyoor Village, Thiruvananthapuram. Accused was arrested on 27 October 2023. The prosecution alleges possession for sale of contraband under NDPS Act, Section 20(b)(ii)(B). The petitioner maintains innocence, claims false implication and that he has been in custody since 27.10.2023. The investigation is complete, recovery effected, and the final report laid. The State contends bail should be refused given lack of roots in Kerala and danger of flight, though concedes no prior antecedents and that investigation has progressed to near completion. After hearing submissions, the Hon’ble Judge found that the contraband was of an intermediate quantity, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, investigation is practically complete, and the final report has been laid. Relying on the liberal bail principle in Hussainara Khatoon (I) and the guidance on bail and recovery in Sushila Aggarwal, the court allowed bail on stringent conditions. The petitioner is to execute a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, and must appear before the IO on Tuesdays and Saturdays, refrain from any inducement or tampering, surrender any passport, furnish address and mobile number, and not leave the jurisdiction without permission. The decision was delivered by Justice C. S. Dias on 28 February 2024.
The WP(C) 37220 of 2023 challenges Ext.P5, an order by the Revenue Divisional Officer rejecting Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, seeking removal of 7 Ares 17.297 cents from the Data Bank for Re.Sy.No Y01/1781 (Old Sy.No 58/PT) in Punkunnam, Thrissur. The petitioners contend the land is not paddy land or wetland under the Kerala Act, as it is garden land within a residential colony and not suitable for paddy cultivation. They argue that the RDO relied on the Agricultural Officer's report and LLMC's recommendation without independent assessment and failed to obtain a KSRSEC report as of 12.08.2008. The petition invokes decisions in Muraleedharan Nair v RDO, Arthasasthra Ventures v State of Kerala, Mather Nagar and Sudheesh v RDO to urge that removal requires careful assessment of the land's status on the Act's date and its suitability for paddy cultivation; simply because a land is fallow does not make it wetland or paddy land. The court agrees the Ext.P5 order is unsustainable, and it sets aside it, directing the RDO to reconsider Form 5 in light of a KSRSEC report, with the petitioners bearing the report cost, within two months. The petition is disposed of.
