Sharsha M.M., a part‑time Language Teacher (Arabic) at SPM UP School, Ayikunnam, Kollam, seeks a mandamus to direct the State to approve her appointment made on 30.12.2019 to fill a retirement vacancy, with all consequential benefits. The 6th respondent Manager allegedly had authority to appoint, but the 3rd respondent and Director of General Education cancelled the Manager’s approval, citing that the Manager lacked recognition. The delay and denial occurred during 2019–2020, a period subsequently affected by COVID‑19 lockdowns. There were prior orders and stay remedies; a 26.03.2015 cancellation order against the Manager was stayed and later quashed by this Court in a 2020 judgment (W.P(C) No. 13441/2015) directing fresh consideration. The government contends that the appointment was made by an unrecognized Manager and during the lockdown, and that GO/Rules restricted regular appointments until July 2021. The petitioner is physically disabled (hearing impairment). The Court held the two grounds for denial untenable, highlighting that the petitioner was appointed before the lockdown and that Exts. P15/P16 showed earlier approvals. The Court quashed Exts. P2, P4, P8, P9, P20 and directed the respondents to approve the appointment from 30.12.2019 within one month, with consequential benefits within three months. The writ petition is allowed, restoring the petitioner’s appointment and benefits.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from a challenge to the FIR, final report and further proceedings in a case involving alleged tender irregularities by the Kasaragod Port office during 2013–2014. Petitioners Nos.1–3 were accused in CC No.12/2021 before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thalassery, in connection with a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) investigation that culminated in VC No.1/2015, alleging offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution contends that four cooperative societies were improperly favoured in the tender for manual dredging and sale of port sand, with the petitioners acting in concert with the societies to allocate zones and thereby secure an illegitimate pecuniary advantage. The petitioners challenge the quashing of proceedings, arguing absence of material establishing conspiracy or dishonest intent, and rely on an earlier order in Crl.M.C. No.1071/2022 indicating lack of material. The learned judge examined principles on conspiracy, mens rea and the necessity of dishonest intent, citing authorities that conspiracy can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and that a mere irregularity in procedure is not automatically criminal misconduct. The court ultimately held that the prosecution failed to establish conspiracy or dishonest intent, noting the lack of pecuniary gain and the labourers’ subsistence context. It quashed the FIR, Final Report and all further proceedings, emphasising that mere procedural lapses do not constitute criminal conduct and invoking the Bhajan Lal framework to end proceedings.
Kishore M S, the third accused in Crime No. 34/2024 of Mannanthala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, challenges an order in CMP 95/2024 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram (Special Court for Marklist Cases). The prosecution alleges a conspiracy in which 1727.77 grams of gold ornaments worth Rs. 96,23,678 were removed from the Catholic Syrian Bank, Nalanchira Branch, on 04.11.2023 by the first accused, who handed the ornaments to the second accused, who passed them to the third accused; the stones and pearls were replaced, the gold melted, and the metal later tested and sold to Kerala Jewellery with profits shared among the accused. The petitioner contends innocence, asserts he is merely subordinate to the first accused, has been in custody since 15.01.2024, and that the investigation is practically complete with recovery effected; he expresses willingness to comply with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor counters that the offence is an economic grave offence involving misappropriation of customers’ gold, sale of assets, and sharing of profits, with ongoing investigation and risk of witness tampering if released. Relying on established bail jurisprudence (Prasanta Kumar Sarkar and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar), the court notes the gravity, risk of tampering, and ongoing investigation and ultimately dismisses the bail application.
Kishor, the third accused in Crime No.114/2023 of the Karunagappally Excise Range Office, Karunagappally, challenged the investigation by seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC before the Kerala High Court. The case concerns offences under Sections 55(a), 56(b) and 67(B) of the Kerala Abkari Act, alleged to have been committed by storing contraband spirit with the intent to enhance toddy potency. The contraband, amounting to 210 litres of spirit, was seized from the rented premises of accused 1 and 4; the first accused was an employee of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed total innocence, contending he was unaware of the spirit, that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and that no recovery would be effected from him. The respondent State opposed bail, arguing that the contraband was seized from premises connected to the petitioner through an employee and that custodial interrogation was essential and would not prejudice the investigation. The Sessions Court had dismissed earlier bail applications (Crl.M.C Nos.1079/2023 and 127/2024) under Section 41A on prima facie complicity and rigour under the Abkari Act. The High Court, invoking Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, Jai Prakash Singh and Sibbia, emphasised cautious, fact-specific exercise of discretion and noted that anticipatory bail is not to be granted lightly. On the materials, the Court found custodial interrogation necessary and declined pre-arrest bail, dismissing the application, while directing surrender within 10 days for interrogation and subsequent merits-based bail consideration.
This Kerala High Court writ petition challenges an assessment order (Ext. P11) under the Kerala KGST Act for the financial year 2018-2019, issued after the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against Empee Distilleries Ltd. The petitioner is a company admitted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), with SNJ Distillers Private Ltd ultimately taking over management per NCLT orders dated 20.01.2020. The plan, approved under Section 31 of the IBC, contains clauses (xii), (xiii), (xxviii) and others envisaging abatement, settlement and extinguishment of liabilities, including contingent or disputed claims, prior to approval, and a broad extinguishment of liabilities not expressly included in the approved plan. The petitioner contends that post-approval of a resolution plan, statutory dues and pre-plan liabilities not included in the plan are extinguished and that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC ceases once a plan is approved; consequently, Ext. P11 is without jurisdiction and contrary to established jurisprudence. The respondents argue that the KGST assessment for 2018-2019 is not barred by the resolution plan, the assessment was finalised following due process, and the IBC provisions (238, 30, 31) preserve the authorities’ power to assess pre-plan dues. The court examines these conflicts through the lens of recent Supreme Court dicta and decides on jurisdiction and compliance with Section 30(2) of the IBC, remanding for a fresh order.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1096 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Haridas K Thankappan, the sole accused in Crime No.56/2024 of Kaliyar Police Station, Idukki, charged with offences under Sections 323, 324 and 326 IPC for allegedly assaulting the injured on 23 January 2024, causing a fracture to the left cheekbone and other injuries with an iron rod and a stone. The prosecution relies on medical records (Accident Register-cum-Wound Certificate) showing a head injury and a comminuted fracture of the left zygomatic arch. The defense contends innocence and contends that one FIR is retaliatory; Annexure A3 and A4 show the injured being a likely drunkard and history-sheeter; They argue that custodial interrogation is unnecessary and that no recovery is to be effected, so pre-arrest bail should be granted. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing that the injuries are serious and custodial interrogation is necessary to ensure investigation and recovery. The court cites law on anticipatory bail, notably Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and the Sibbia principles, and Jai Prakash Singh, to emphasize that bail decisions must be case-specific and exercised with caution. After considering the material, the court holds that there are no exceptional grounds for anticipatory bail and denies pre-arrest bail. However, it directs the petitioner to surrender within 10 days; upon surrender, the jurisdictional court may consider the bail on merits expeditiously, unconstrained by observations herein.
C.R.P.(WAKF) No. 12 of 2024 Muhammedkutty @ Mammu Haji, a third party, has filed C.R.P. (WAKF) No. 12 of 2024 challenging an order of the Waqf Tribunal, Kozhikode, dated 30 January 2024 in I.A. No. 53 of 2024 in W.O.S. No. 10 of 2022. The Waqf Tribunal had dismissed his application seeking impleadment as a supplemental fifth defendant in a suit by respondents 1–4 for declaration that the 4th respondent is the Mutawalli of Niramaruthur Korangath Juma Masjid and waqf properties, and for related reliefs; respondents 1–4’s claim includes that the 1st respondent is no longer alive. The petitioner contends that he learned of the pendency only on 15 December 2023 and that he should be joined as a necessary or proper party under Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC and Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1994, so that issues can be adjudicated completely. The Tribunal refused on the ground of belatedness after evidence had started. The High Court, invoking decisions on the necessity of reasons in quasi-judicial orders (including Gordhandas Bhanji, Mohinder Singh Gill, Breen, Kakkar, and related authorities), held that the impugned order was cryptic and unable to facilitate effective appellate review. It allowed the revision, set aside the Tribunal’s order, and directed fresh consideration of I.A. No. 53 of 2024 with hearing, within three weeks, deferring trial of W.O.S. No. 10 of 2022 until fresh orders are issued.
The appellant, ABOOBACKER s/o Hassankutty, filed MACA No. 1971 of 2012 challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri’s award in OP(MV) 411/2007, arising from a scooter–lorry collision on 18 May 2006. The scooter rider sustained serious injuries and disability; the tribunal held the accident attributable to negligence of the first respondent, but found the vehicle was not covered by a valid policy and exonerated the insurer (3rd respondent). The insurer contended there was no policy for TN 45E 6333; later, it was admitted that the policy for TN 45E 6333 did exist, though mis-stated in policy documents. The appellant argued that the misstatement was clerical and did not negate coverage, and sought enhancement of compensation. The court noted the belated rectification of the policy details and faulted the 3rd respondent for delays that deprived the claimant of rightful compensation for about 17 years. Relying on Sidram v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the court allowed some litigation expenses (Rs. 10,000) and revised the quantum of compensation by increasing income to Rs.5,000/month and applying 35.6% disability, resulting in a total reassessment of Rs.5,52,010. The insurer is now liable to pay the entire amount with applicable interest and costs, deposited within three months, with the claimant providing PAN, Aadhar and bank details.
CRL.RC No. 269 of 2018 & Connected Cases This batch order of the Kerala High Court, dated 7 June 2024, consolidates Criminal Revision Cases numbering 269/2018 and numerous connected matters arising from orders of acquittal in various Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollam cases. The court examines suo motu revisions instituted under Section 258 Cr.P.C. following the Administrative Committee’s resolution dated 18 September 2017. The core legal question concerns the power of a Magistrate to stop proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. in summons-case proceedings not instituted on complaint, particularly where the accused could not be located and the costs of procuring the accused would exceed the maximum prescribed fine. The court cites a Division Bench decision in 2023 KHC Online 821 to outline the settled law: if the prosecution submits a clear report showing that reasonable steps to locate the accused were unsuccessful, and that the costs of ensuring appearance outweigh the maximum fine, it may be permissible to stop proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The judgment treats these connected revisions as falling squarely within Section 258, and holds that the Magistrate’s stoppage should not be interfered with. Consequently, the revisions are dismissed/closed, and there is no interference with the Magistrate’s order. The order is signed by Justice P. Somarajan.
CRL.RC No. 611/2018 & Connected Cases These proceedings arise from a batch of criminal revision petitions filed in the Kerala High Court challenging the orders of acquittal in a series of suo motu actions initiated under the Administrative Committee's resolution dated 18.09.2017. The petitions—CRL.RC No. 611/2018 and connected matters (612/2018, 613/2018, up to 723/2018)—were taken up before Hon'ble Justice P. Somarajan on 12 June 2024. The central issue is the jurisdiction and scope of the magistrate's power under Section 258 Cr.P.C., to stop proceedings in summons cases, where the accused could not be procured despite reasonable efforts or where procuring the accused would entail costs exceeding the maximum fine prescribed. The judgments excerpted from 2023 KHC OnLine 821 (Suo motu v. State of Kerala and another) are cited to articulate the legal position that stoppage of proceedings under Section 258 is permissible in appropriate circumstances, but must be justified and properly reasoned. The court reviews whether the magistrates’ orders to stop proceedings in the connected ST Nos. 10140/2013, 10165/2013, etc., were properly grounded. The final outcome, after considering the material, is that the cited authority supports the application of 258 Cr.P.C., and the revisions fall outside the permissible grounds for interference; hence the revisions fail and are closed.
This appeal is by the claimant from OP(MV) No.26/2016 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded for injuries resulting from a road accident on 21.09.2015. The claimant, Raveendran, sustained severe injuries when his motorcycle KL-51/1274 was hit by a tipper lorry KL-45-1268 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The Tribunal awarded ₹2,25,340/- under various heads with 9% interest from 04.01.2016 against the insurer, but the appellant sought higher compensation. The court grounds the enhancement primarily on the notional income principle, citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance (2011) 13 SCC 236, and re-fixes notional monthly income at ₹10,000. It increases bystander expenses from ₹200 to ₹400 per day and recalculates several heads: loss of earning (₹60,000 total as revised), pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment and amenities of life, continuing permanent disability, and future medical expenses, including medical bills and Annexure X1 series documents. The Tribunal’s sum for medical and miscellaneous expenses, bystander costs, and other heads is adjusted, culminating in a total enhanced compensation of ₹1,06,833 over the original award, with 8% interest from the petition date and special handling for future medical expenses. The appeal is allowed in part; the insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with conditions for identification and disbursement.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA 1729 of 2005) before the Kerala High Court arising from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in OP(MV) No.29 of 2000. The deceased, Sunilkumar, aged 26, son of the appellants, died on 25 July 1999 after an 11 kV electric line was contacted during unloading of a tipper lorry, causing electrocution while the deceased stood beside the lorry. The appellants sought compensation for the death; the Tribunal held the 2nd respondent (lorry driver) negligent and the insurer liable, awarding Rs.1,12,400 with interest. The High Court allowed the appeal and re-assessed quantum by applying contemporary principles: increasing monthly income to Rs.2,500, adding future prospects of 40% (age 26) under Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma’s multiplier guidance, and applying a correct multiplier of 17 (not 8). The court also awarded Rs.10,000 for funeral expenses, Rs.1,000 for transport, and Rs.80,000 for loss of consortium to the parents, culminating in an additional Rs.3,61,600. It held the insurer liable for interest on the enhanced amount at 8% from the petition date, with a 235-day delay excluded from interest calculation. The appeal was allowed, and the enhanced compensation ordered to be deposited by the insurer with requisite claimant details.
This is a batch of suo motu Criminal Revision Cases (CRL.RC Nos. 725/2018 and connected cases) heard by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, on 13 June 2024 before Hon. Justice P. Somarajan. The petitions arise from suo motu proceedings initiated under the Administrative Committee’s resolution dated 18.09.2017, challenging orders of acquittal passed by several Judicial Magistrates of Kollam in a large set of ST cases (e.g., ST Nos. 6719/2014, 6764/2014, 6794/2014, 6786/2014, 6629/2014, etc.). The respondents include the State of Kerala (represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kollam/Kottiayam in various CR numbers) and individual accused such as Vishnu, Renjith, Babu, Sasidharan, Jobin, and others. The core legal issue concerns the applicability of Section 258 Cr.P.C., which permits a Magistrate to stop proceedings in certain cases, potentially leading to discharge or acquittal, where proceedings cannot be continued with reasonable effort or cost would exceed the maximum fine. The court references a Division Bench decision in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821) to articulate the criteria for invoking 258. Ultimately, the court concludes that the revision petitions fail and are closed, leaving the acquittals undisturbed. The bench is a Single Judge (P. Somarajan, J.).
Madhavan, the second accused, challenges his conviction under sections 457 and 380 read with section 34 IPC, as recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. The Kerala High Court, in revision under section 397 read with section 401 CrPC, heard on 3 June 2024 and delivered on 10 June 2024, rejected the petition. The incident occurred on the night of 4 February 2010 at the Alumood–Cheravally Temple junction, when PW1 woke to a movement in her hall and saw a person; two other assailants were inside or near the house. PW2 (PW1’s niece) and PW3 (PW1’s daughter) were asleep in the adjacent room; jewelry including an anklet, bracelet and a portion of a gold chain were snatched. The prosecution relied on the identification by PW1–PW3 of accused Nos.1–3 in the house lighting and on recovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. PW4, a jeweller, did not support the case, and his evidence weakened the prosecution’s case, but the trial court nonetheless convicted all three accused; the appellate court upheld. The petitioner contends that the identification suffered from unreliability, there was no test identification parade, and the recovery evidence, based on oral statements to police, was inadmissible. The Public Prosecutor argued that the witnesses identified the accused under adequate lighting and that the recovery corroborated the charges, and that PW4’s deviation does not destroy the case. The High Court held that the concurrent findings are well supported by the record and that revision jurisdiction cannot be used to re‑appreciate evidence, and accordingly dismissed the revision petition.
Joseph Madathipparambil Michael, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, challenged Ext.P8, a consequential order issued by the Assessing Authority on 17.02.2023, which purportedly implemented a Tribunal remand dated 24.05.2016 under Section 254 IT Act, directing de novo consideration of the Respondent-Department’s findings, notably the Section 54F claim. The petition contends Ext.P8 is time-barred under Section 153(2A) as it stood before the 2016 amendments. The matter traces back to the assessment year 2007-2008; post-appeal, the First Appellate Authority ruled partially in favor of the petitioner on indexed cost of acquisition and against him on Section 54F. The Tribunal remanded for de novo adjudication on the remanded issue, and the AO passed a consequential order only after a prolonged delay. The core question was whether a remand on a single issue to be decided de novo falls within Section 153(2A)’s one-year limit for fresh assessments. The bench acknowledges Dr. R.P. Patel’s prior view and finds that the statutory scheme aims for expeditious finality; Ext.P8 is quashed, with consequential reliefs in favor of the petitioner. The court also cites Nokia India, Shelf Drilling, and Roca Bathroom as supportive authorities.
This Original Petition (OP(C)) No. 321 of 2024, before the Kerala High Court, concerns an amendment sought by the defendants in O.S. No. 128/2019 (Ernakulam) to their written statement to challenge the disposing capacity of the testatrix and to deny the Will relied upon by the plaintiff, who seeks partition and other relief. The petitioners (defendants) contend that Ext. P5 sought only to elaborate a contention already in the WS about the Will, which is not probated, and that the Will’s validity and its implications are in dispute. The plaintiff had produced the Will in the suit, with the original Will surfaced only in December 2023, after the trial had commenced but before a date of trial, raising questions about the timing and purpose of Ext. P5. The respondent/plaintiff argues that the amendment would contravene the pleadings in O.S. No. 986/2012 and would alter the admitted case, since the Will is not seriously disputed in the existing pleadings. The High Court examines whether post-commencement amendments are permissible and whether due diligence was shown to justify the amendment. Relying on SC precedents including M. Ravamma Anjanamma and Basavaraj V. Indira, the court concludes that amendments after trial have restrictive limits absent due diligence. Ultimately, the court dismisses the petition and upholds Ext. P9, thereby affirming the lower court’s order.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1113 OF 2024 Mani, the second accused in Crime No.1805/2023 of Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur, seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC in connection with offences punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that the accused, along with another, induced the de facto complainant to pay Rs 6.5 lakh by promising a UK work visa, but failed to offer employment or refund the money. Mani contends innocence, arguing there is no specific overt act attributable to him, he is 66 years old with no criminal antecedents, and he is willing to comply with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor counters that Rs 2,00,000 was transferred to him and custodial interrogation is necessary to recover proceeds; granting pre-arrest bail would hamper the investigation. The court considers the judicial framework on anticipatory bail laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia, as well as Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, emphasizing case-specific discretion rather than rigid guidelines and the need to balance fair investigation with prevention of harassment. Given the nascent stage of investigation and lack of exceptional grounds, the court holds that the petitioner is not entitled to pre-arrest bail and dismisses the application. It allows surrender within ten days for renewed consideration on surrender, with directions for production and merit-based review thereafter. SD/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
CRL.RC Nos. 269/2018, 273/2018, 275/2018, 276/2018, 277/2018, 278/2018, 279/2018, 281/2018, 282/2018, 287/2018, 290/2018, 291/2018, 292/2018, 296/2018, 298/2018, 300/2018, 301/2018, 303/2018, 307/2018, 308/2018, 309/2018, 311/2018, 315/2018, 317/2018, 319/2018, 323/2018, 327/2018, 328/2018, 330/2018, 336/2018, 342/2018, 346/2018, 348/2018, 349/2018, 350/2018, 351/2018, 353/2018, 356/2018, 357/2018, 358/2018, 359/2018, 361/2018, 362/2018, 363/2018, 374/2018, 375/2018, 376/2018, 383/2018, 386/2018 & 393/2018] This batch of connected Criminal Revision Cases arises from suo motu proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. initiated by the Administrative Committee’s resolution dated 18-09-2017 against orders of acquittal in several Sessions Trials at Kollam. The High Court of Kerala, presided by Hon’ble Justice P. Somarajan, heard the matter on 7 June 2024 with all connected CRL.RC Nos. 269/2018 and 273/2018 through 393/2018. The central issue is whether a Magistrate can invoke Section 258 Cr.P.C. to stop proceedings in summons cases when the conditions—no probable presence of the accused despite best efforts, and cost exceeding the maximum fine—are met. The court cites a Division Bench decision in State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821) to articulate the settled legal position. It notes that the batch squarely falls within the purview of Section 258 and that stoppage of proceedings by the Magistrate deserves no interference. Consequently, the revisions are dismissed/closed. The order recognizes the Administrative Committee’s suo motu venture, but declines to disturb the trial court’s exercise of Section 258 powers. The result is that all connected revisions are disposed of in terms of the operative order at the end of the document.
The petitioner, Juhi Thomas, seeks the removal of a land plot from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and its Rules. She challenges Ext.P5, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting her Form 5 application under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, which sought deletion of 12 ares of land from Sy.Nos.139/6-2, 138/4-2 and 138/2-2 in Kuzhippilly Village, Kochi Taluk. The RDO refused removal, relying on an Agricultural Officer’s report and the LLMC recommendation, and noting that KSRSEC data labeled the land as paddy land in 2007, while 2009 data indicated the land was filled. The petitioner argues the decision suffers from non‑application of mind, misinterpretation of the KSRSEC report, and contravention of the Act, 2008 and binding precedents. The court references Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022) 7 KHC 591, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO (2023) 4 KLT 270, Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO (2023) 6 KHC 83, Adani Infrastructures & Developers v. State of Kerala (2014) 1 KHC 685, and Sudheesh v. RDO (2023) 2 KLT 386 to emphasize independent, objective assessment focusing on the land’s status as of the Act’s commencement and its suitability for paddy cultivation. The court sets aside Ext.P5 and directs the RDO to reconsider the Form 5 application, basing the decision on Ext.P4 KSREC report and a site visit, guided by this judgment and binding precedents, within two months of receiving a copy of the judgment.
Pramod Subash, the petitioner, challenges Ext.P3, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer refusing Form 5 for removal of 0.1416 hectares of land in Sy.No.1/5 (old 205/1) of Nadama Village from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and the Rules, 2008. The property is claimed not to be paddy land or wetland as defined by the Act. The petitioner filed Form 5 to exclude the land from the Data Bank, but Ext.P3 records rejection based on the Agricultural Officer’s report and LLMC’s recommendation. The petitioner contends Ext.P3 violates the Act and binding precedents and relies on directions in this Court’s Ext.P2 judgment, which directed a process involving KSREC satellite imagery and expert opinion to determine whether the property satisfied the Act’s definition as on 12.08.2008, with the investigation to be completed by the RDO in a structured sequence. The Court cites Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO to stress independent assessment, data‑driven verification, and the predominant feasibility of paddy cultivation as the guiding criterion. The Court sets aside Ext.P3, directing reconsideration within two months, with KSREC report at petitioner’s expense and advance access to satellite imagery, and requires the petitioner to apply for KSREC within two weeks of this judgment.”
