Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8361
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
FAHIS T – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2281 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ
For the Respondents: SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
The authorized officer must comply with statutory procedures for assessing land suitability under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, ensuring independent evaluations.
Headnote:The petitioner contested the order of the authorized officer rejecting his application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The Court found procedural failings in the order regarding inspection and evaluation of the land. It ruled the order should be vacated. The Court mandated proper assessment including possibly conducting a personal hearing or gathering additional satellite images for evidence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks quashing of the rejection order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court hears arguments from counsel. (Para 3) |
| 3. court identifies failings in authorized officer's process. (Para 4) |
| 4. court reiterates mandatory assessment requirements. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i) To call for records leading to Exhibit P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction;
ii) To direct the respondents to obtain scientific data and other relevant material and to communicate copies of all reports to the petitioner and to grant an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before considering Ext.P3 application by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order.
iii) To dispense with filing of English translation of Exhibits in Malayalam / Vernacular language.
iv) To grant such other relief in favour of the petitioners as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ”
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by him under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioner is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused the impugned order. I am of the considered opinion that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The impugned order was passed by the authorised officer solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. There is no indication in the order 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 Officer, 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 order is 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 order is to be set aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:
1. Ext.P4 order is set aside.
