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) 29618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
GOPAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 19233 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: HARIKRISHNAN S., P.PRIJITH, THOMAS P.KURUVILLA, R.GITHESH, AJAY BEN JOSE, P.MARTIN JOSE, ANNA LINDA EDEN, MANJUNATH MENON, SACHIN JACOB AMBAT, ANAVADYA SANIL KUMAR, ANJALI KRISHNA
For the Respondents: PREETHA KK

The court established that when physical evidence, such as independent commissioner reports, demonstrates that land is fundamentally unsuitable for paddy cultivation, the statutory data bank entry must be corrected to reflect its actual state, overriding rigid administrative classification.

Headnote:This writ petition challenges the rejection of an application filed under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, seeking the removal of land from the data bank. The petitioners contended that the property, which lacks any cultivation and contains aged coconut trees, is unfit for paddy agriculture, a fact supported by an Advocate Commissioner's report. The Court determined that the classification as paddy land was unsustainable given the current physical condition of the property and its surrounding environment. The core issue addressed was whether the land retained its characteristics as 'paddy land' warranting its retention in the data bank. The Court held that reliance on old administrative records is secondary to the ground reality of the land's utility and suitability for cultivation. The Ratio Decidendi rests on the finding that when evidence unequivocally demonstrates that paddy cultivation is practically impossible due to the conversion of the land's nature and surrounding developments, the statutory authority must permit the reclassification. The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of rejection is set aside, and the authority is directed to re-examine the application within thirty days.

Table of Content
1. procedural background of the form-5 application rejection. (Para 1 , 2)
2. evaluation of commissioner's report regarding land suitability. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i) “Call for the records leading to Exhibits.P10 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other writ, order or direction;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ order or direction compelling the 1st respondent to allow Exhibit.P1 Form-5 application within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

iii) Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced along with the present Writ Petition.

iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction as may be just and proper in the interest of justice.” [sic]

2. A Form-5 application submitted in accordance with Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 was rejected originally. The same was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(c.) No. 27372/2022. This Court disposed that writ petition setting aside the order passed in the Form-5 application and directing the authorised officer to reconsider the matter. Now, again that Form-5 application is rejected as evident by Ext.P10. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the 1st petitioner submitted that he is ready to take out a commission. Accordingly, Adv.Manjusha K was appointed as the Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner submitted a detailed report. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the report :

“The property in question appears to have not been used for any cultivation for several years. The front portion of the property (adjacent to the PWD road) lies at a lower level compared to the southern portion of the same property. The petitioner informed that soil from this portion was taken for widening the Mannar– Puliyoor PWD Road. Photograph evidencing the same is produced herewith and marked for identification as Exhibit C5.

According to the petitioner, about 15m away from the property in question (on the eastern side) adjacent to the PWD road, there is a culvert. The culvert is not visible as it is covered with grass and thistles. On the opposite side of the road (northern side) the extension of culvert is visible which is going in between a residential building and a two-wheeler shop. Photograph evidencing extension of culvert is produced herewith and marked for identification as Exhibit C6 B. The vegetations in the property:

No cultivation of any kind was there on the property. However, 8 coconut trees, which are over 20 years old, are seen growing on the property. The remains of two cut trees are visible on the property. Photographs evidencing lying of trees is produced herewith and marked for identification as Exhibit C7, Exhibit C7(a), Exhibit C7(b) Exhibit C7(c)

C. To verify if paddy is cultivated in any of the properties in the vicinity of the property of the 1st petitioner No paddy cultivation was observed in the adjacent properties of the petitioner. There are residential buildings and business establishments on either side of the Mannar– Puliyoor PWD Road. There is an ITI named Bharat ITI located in the south-west direction of the property in question. Proceeding westward via Mannar Junction, there is a property that appears to be fallow land with no paddy cultivation, located approximately 2 km from the property in question. In the eastern direction, at a distance of about 1.5 km from the property, there is a paddy field.

6. It is submitted that no request was made by the 1st petitioner or his counsel to ascertain any other matters. Hence, I concluded the inspection at approximately 12:45 PM.

7. I respectfully submit this report along with photographs and Exhibits before this Hon’ble Court for kind perusal.”

5. Along with the report, Commissioner also produced Exts.C

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