Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29729
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
Aboobacker – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17358 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Deepak Mohan
For the Respondents: Deepa V.
Statutory authorities must conduct a direct inquiry into the land's characteristics as of 12.08.2008 and produce a reasoned order when deciding on applications to exclude property from the data bank, consistent with mandatory procedural requirements for inspection or reliance on satellite mapping.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge to an order rejecting a 'Form 5' application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner contested the order on the grounds that the authorised officer failed to conduct a proper assessment as mandated by the law. The Court determined that the order was passed without verifying the property's nature and character through required inspections or satellite imagery. Issues raised concern the failure of the statutory authority to perform its duties under Rule 4(4f). The Ratio Decidendi establishes that the competent authority is duty-bound to assess the land's nature, lie, and suitability for paddy cultivation as of 12.08.2008, and must provide a reasoned decision that considers the impact on surrounding fields. The final result is that the impugned order is set aside, and the authority is directed to reconsider the application within specific timeframes, either through personal inspection or by obtaining satellite data.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of writ petition challenging administrative order on land conversion. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. absence of statutory compliance regarding land inspection and reporting mandates. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exhibit P2 order of the
1st respondent.
ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent or the officer authorised under Section 2(XVA) of ‘The Kerala Conservation of paddy land and wet land Act, 2008’ to re-consider the ‘Form 5’ application filed by the petitioner, after calling forward the satellite maps and fresh reports from the respondents 4, 5 and 6, and also after hearing the petitioner, within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 4th respondent Village Officer to give sufficient reports required under the Act and the Rules to the 1st respondent or the officer authorised under Section
2(XVA) of the Act, without further delay.
iv) Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced along with this writ petition. And v) Issue such other Writs, directions or orders as this Hon’ble Court may feel just and necessary 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.P2 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider the Form – 5 application submitted by the petitioner 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 consider
