Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24896
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JEESHMA T V – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 35095 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.NIRMAL KRISHNAN
For the Respondents: SR GP SMT PREETHA K K
The competent authority must independently assess land suitability for paddy cultivation under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the rejection order of her Form-5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, claiming non-consideration of her contentions by the authorised officer. The Court found that the officer neglected statutory obligations, lacking independent assessment and implying failure to evaluate surrounding paddy fields. It cited judgments mandating the competent authority to inspect and ascertain land suitability. Thus, it concluded to set aside the impugned order, allowing reconsideration in accordance with lawful processes and timelines.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. key facts establishing the basis for the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's observations regarding statutory compliance by the authority. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order to call for the records leading to Exhibit P4 order passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent/authorized officer to reconsider the Exhibit P3 form 5 application and pass orders only after resorting to the KSREC report.
iii) To dispense with the production of translated vernacular documents.
&
iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice. ”
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by her 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.
2. The 3rd respondent/authorised o to reconsider Ext.P3 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 the judgment dated 05.11.2025 in Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6) KLT 275 ], shall be passed.
