Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30797
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
Alavi Vattoli – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
WP(C) No. 16330 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Farhana K.H., Muhasin K.M.
For the Respondents: Deepa V
The competent authority is statutorily obliged to independently assess the nature and character of the land as of August 12, 2008, before passing an order regarding its exclusion from the data bank, properly considering scientific evidence like KSREC reports.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Form 5 application submitted under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner contended that the authorized officer failed to properly evaluate the KSREC report or consider the surrounding land use patterns. Upon review, the Court found that the authorized officer had not provided an independent assessment of the land's nature and character as of the relevant date, rendering the order legally deficient. The primary issue before the Court was whether the competent authority exercised its statutory obligations correctly in evaluating the application for exclusion of land from the data bank. The Court held that the authorized officer is duty-bound to assess the land's nature and suitability for paddy cultivation as of the relevant date (12.08.2008). Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that the failure to conduct a proper inquiry or utilize available scientific reports meant the impugned order was unsustainable. The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the third respondent for fresh consideration within the prescribed timeframe.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petition challenges the procedural validity of a form 5 rejection order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court asserts that statutory authorities must independently evaluate evidence and land characteristics for data bank exclusion. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext. P3 order and quash the same.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent or the officer authorized under section 2(XVA) of the Act to reconsider petitioner’s Form 5 application and pass orders afresh after properly considering Ext. P4 KSREC report.
iii) To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.
iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” [SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting Ext.P2 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 based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. Even though, KSREC report is available, the same is not properly considered by the authorised officer. 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 can be set aside.
6. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that there is an inspection conducted in the property before passing the impugned order. But, from the order itself, it is clear that the inspection is conducted by the office of the authorised officer, not directly by the authorised officer.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:
1. Ext.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent / authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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 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 Collec
