SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58763

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
MURINGERI RAFEEQ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 48443 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.C.VINCENT
For the Respondents: SMT.REKHA C NAIR, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The competent authority has a legal duty to expeditiously consider statutory applications concerning land classification under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, regarding the petitioner's land ownership and request to remove it from the Data Bank. The Court finds that the statutory application must be considered expeditiously to avoid hardship (para 6). The issues framed involve the legal duty of the authority to process such applications properly (para 4). The final result mandates the 2nd respondent to decide on the Form-5 application within three months.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim to reconsider land classification. (Para 1 , 2)
2. legal duty of authority to process application. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's directive for timely resolution of application. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of December, 2025 The petitioner, who is owner of 99.15 Ares of land in Kannadiparambu Village of Kannur Taluk in Kannur District, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner states that he is owner of 99.15 Ares of land situated in Survey Nos.77/121 and 77/122 in Block No.181 of Kannadiparambu Village of Kannur Taluk in Kannur District. The land is a garden land. It is not cultivated with paddy. It is not fit for paddy cultivation either. However, the land is included in the Data Bank and is described as paddy land in Revenue records also.

3. The petitioner wants to use the land for other purposes. Hence, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 application in Form-5, invoking Rule 4(4D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008. The application was filed on 16.12.2025. The application is not disposed of so far. Unless the application is considered expeditiously, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship and loss, contends the petitioner.

4. The Government Pleader representing the respondents resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader controverted all material allegations made by the petitioner, in the writ petition. The Government Pleader, however, submitted that since the petitioner has invoked a statutory remedy under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008, the application submitted by the petitioner can be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, provided the application is received, is complete in all respects and is supported by all necessary documents.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

6. The petitioner is owner of 99.15 Ares of land situated in Survey Nos.77/121 and 77/122 in Block No.181 of Kannadiparambu Village of Kannur Taluk in Kannur District. The land is included in the Data Bank of paddy land and wetland prepared under Section 5 (4)(i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008. According to the petitioner, the land owned by him is neither paddy land nor wetland. The land is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The petitioner wants to use the land for other purposes and hence he has filed an application in Form-5 seeking to remove the land from Data Bank.

7. The Form-5 application has been filed by the petitioner invoking his statutory right under Rule 4(4D) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008. The application being a statutory application, the competent authority has a legal duty to consider the application in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner if the same is received, supported by all requisite documents and paying prescribed fee, if any, and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of three months.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top