IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
MR. SINOJ K.C. – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1632 OF 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. findings related to paddy land assessment procedures. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“1. A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P7.
2. A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to reconsider and act upon Exhibit P6, Form No. 5 application in accordance with law.
3. Declare that the Petitioner’s property having an extent of 1.21 Ares of land situated in Ernakulam District, Paravoor Taluk, Karikkad Village, Nellikode Kara, comprised in Survey No. 119/2-44, is garden land and that the Petitioner is entitled to use the property for construction of a residential house or for any purpose other than agricultural activities.
4. Declare that the Petitioner’s land cannot be used for paddy cultivation and that the same is not a wetland, water body, or pond, and that the surrounding properties are also exclusively used for residential purposes.
5. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by the petitioner 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 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 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.P7 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P6 Form – 5 application 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner.
4. If the authorised officer is either dismissing or allowing the petition, a speaking order as directed by this court in Vinumon v. Distri
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.