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) 17191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
ABDUL RAB V – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 25353 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. ARYA ASHOKAN

The Revenue Divisional Officer must obtain necessary reports before rejecting applications related to land conservation regulations.

Headnote:This judgment pertains to a writ petition where the petitioner challenged the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer rejecting a Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008. The Court found the rejection improper due to lack of a necessary report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre, determining a need for further review. The core issue was whether the RDO should have procured KSREC's report before making a decision. The Court concluded that the matter must be reconsidered, ordering new directives for addressing the Form 5 application with required thoroughness.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges rdo's order on land conversion. (Para 1 , 2)
2. rdo should obtain ksrec's report for proper assessment. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner filed this captioned writ petition pointing out that, with respect to a property of an extent of 4.34 Ares in Survey No.151/1B and 4.04 Ares in Survey No.151/4A2 of Edappal Village, Ponnani Taluk, he had filed a Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules , 2008 for removing the said property from the data bank. According to the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) has rejected the same by Ext.P7 order without proper appreciation of the relevant facts. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court with the captioned writ petition.

2. A perusal of the order at Ext.P7 dated 20.7.2018 would show that the same has been issued by the RDO on the basis of an interaction with the Village Officer as well as the Agricultural Officer. The order also shows that the Village Officer as well as the Agricultural Officer has pointed out that the issue requires to be considered with reference to the report of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC). Even thereafter, the impugned order has been issued without obtaining a report from the KSREC, solely on the basis of the finding that in the property in question there are no trees which would point to conversion prior to 2008.

3. In my opinion, insofar as the petitioner had contended that the conversion took place sufficiently earlier to 2008, the RDO ought to have obtained a report from the KSREC and, insofar as it is not done, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the competent authority.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside Ext.P7. There will be a direction to the authorised officer to pass fresh orders on the Form 5 application, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from today. While passing orders as above, the report from the KSREC at Ext.P8 is also required to be considered. The authorised officer would also be entitled to carry out a physical inspection of the properties in question, if required.

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 Back to top