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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16334

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
SUMATHY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 40504 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SARATH M.S., SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
For the Respondents: None mentioned

Administrative decisions must be based on comprehensive evaluations of relevant factors to ensure just outcomes.

Headnote:The case concerns an application by the petitioner, Sumathy, under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, for the removal of land from the Data Bank, which was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer on grounds not adequately supported by agricultural assessment. The court found the rejection lacked consideration of essential factors regarding land utility. The court mandated a fresh evaluation of the application, ensuring proper inspection and report acquisition by the authorities involved. The application was allowed, and the previous order was set aside.

Table of Content
1. failure to consider suitable land use. (Para 1 , 2)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has instituted an application in Form 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008, seeking to remove the property extending to 0.0870 hectares in Re Sy. No.333/1 in Vallangi Village, from the Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer, having rejected the afore application by Ext.P8, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Ext.P8 order discloses that the same has been issued with reference to the report obtained from the Agricultural Officer. At the same time, a report from the KSREC is not called for or referred to. In fact, Ext.P8 order is one issued in the second round of litigation. In the 1st round of litigation, by Ext.P7 judgment, this Court has specifically made reference to the order issued under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order , 1967, and the steps taken for carrying out construction in the year 2021. Ext.P8 order, though admits that permission under the KLU Order has been granted, the petitioner has not carried out any construction in the property in question. The only reason stated for rejecting the application is the fact that the nearby properties are paddy fields. However, the question as to whether the property in question is suitable for paddy cultivation is not considered. 3. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires a reconsideration at the hands of Revenue Divisional Officer/authorised officer.

Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P8. There will be a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer/authorised officer to dispose of Form 5 application filed by the petitioner afresh after obtaining the report from the KSREC, the fee for which requires to be paid by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months from today. The Revenue Divisional Officer/authorised officer would also be entitled to carry out a personal inspection of the property in question while passing orders as above.

Sd/-

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top