Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30800
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Jamsheed – Appellant
Versus
Sub Collector – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 16964 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: U.K.Devidas
For the Respondents: Deepa V
The authority is mandatorily required to conduct a technical or site inspection and issue a reasoned speaking order when deciding applications for land exclusion under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the order of the Sub Collector rejecting an application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, seeking exclusion of land from the data bank. The court reviewed whether the statutory authority properly exercised its discretion in assessing the land status as required under the Act. The central issue was whether the rejection order met the mandatory assessment standards. The court observed that the authority failed to conduct independent inspections or utilize satellite imagery as mandated by Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that the competent authority is duty-bound to assess the land's character as it stood on 12.08.2008 and must provide a reasoned, independent finding to support its decision. The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for reconsideration with specific directions to follow statutory compliance and provide a reasoned order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the litigation and grievance regarding form 5 application rejection. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirement for independent assessment and speaking orders under the rules. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i. a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records leading to Ext.P3 order and quash the same.
ii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to first respondent to allow the Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner under Form No. 5 of the Act, 2008.
OR a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner under Form 5 of the Act, 2008 on the basis of the KSREC report and afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a reasonable time.
iii. such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature of this case.
iv. a direction to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular document produced with this writ petition.” [SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the 1st 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 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. P3 order is set aside.
2. The 1st 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 applications 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. Distric
