Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 51189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
BINDU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 42667 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN, SMT.DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN, SHRI.VISHAK K.V., SHRI.ANU T.H., SMT.ANUSREE P.A.
For the Respondents: SR GP, SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
The competent authority must assess land suitability for paddy cultivation as per statutory requirements before exclusion from data banks.
Headnote:The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 impose specific obligations on statutory authorities. Petitioners sought to quash orders rejecting their Form-5 applications, alleging non-consideration of their contentions. Court found the authorized officer's actions non-compliant with statutory duties. Key issues include compliance with statutory requirements and suitable assessments of land. Court reasoned that independent assessments and proper considerations were mandatory, aligning with prior rulings. The Writ Petition was allowed; the impugned orders were set aside, directing reconsideration and adherence to statutory procedures within stipulated timeframes.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for quashing and reconsideration of rejected applications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsels heard for both parties. (Para 3) |
| 3. authorized officer failed on statutory compliance. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P6 and P7 and may be pleased to quash the same by issuing a writ of Certiorari in the interests of justice;
(ii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction commanding the 3rd Respondent to reconsider the applications submitted by the Petitioner in Form 5 and pass appropriate orders on the same within a shortest time limit as this Hon'ble Court thinks fit in the interest of justice;
(iii) Dispense the production of translated copies of vernacular documents produced along with this writ petition; AND (iv) To pass such other appropriate orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”[SIC]
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting the Form–5 applications submitted by them under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioners is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioners.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused the impugned orders. I am of the considered opinion that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The impugned orders were passed by the authorised officer solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. There is no indication in the orders that the authorised officer has directly inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. There is no independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as on the relevant date by the authorised officer. Moreover, the authorised officer has not considered whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.
5. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2023 (4) KHC 524 ], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional O Palakkad [ 2023 (2) KLT 386 ], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [ 2021 (1) KLT 433 ], observed that the competent authority is obliged to assess the nature, lie and character of the land and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive criteria to determine whether the property merits exclusion from the data bank. The impugned orders are not in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court in the above judgments. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders are to be set aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:
1. Exts.P6 and P7 orders are set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider the Form – 5 applications submitted by the petitioners in accordance with the law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioners, if not already called for.
3. If satellite pictures are called for, the application shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the authorised officer opts to personally inspect the property, the application shall be considered and disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners.
4. If the authorised officer is either dismissing or allowing the petition, a speaking order, as directed by this Court in the judgment dated 05.11.2025 in W.P.
(C).No.984/2025, shall be passed.
Sd/-
