Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Haji K.A.Noushad – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17238 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Shanavas Khan, S.Indu, Govind H. Nair
For the Respondents: Deepa V
An authority rejecting an application to remove land from a paddy land data bank must conduct an independent assessment of evidence, such as physical inspection or satellite imagery, and provide a speaking order explaining why the land's exclusion would affect surrounding paddy cultivation.
Headnote:The petitioner sought to quash an order rejecting an application filed in Form 5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, for the exclusion of certain lands from the data bank. The court analyzed the statutory requirement under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, which necessitates an independent assessment by the authorised officer, including physical inspection or the procurement of satellite imagery to determine the land's status as of August 12, 2008. The court found that the impugned order was passed without such independent scrutiny, relying solely on a report from the agricultural officer. The central issue was whether the statutory mandate to assess the character of the land and its suitability for cultivation as of the specified date was satisfied. Relying on established precedents, the court held that the authority must conduct a genuine assessment of the land's nature, lie, and character, and must consider whether excluding the land would prejudicially affect surrounding paddy fields. The court emphasized that the authority is obliged to provide a reasoned, speaking order when adjudicating such applications. The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the authority is directed to reconsider the application in accordance with the law, either by conducting a personal inspection or obtaining satellite pictures within a prescribed timeline.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner seeks to quash an order rejecting a form 5 application for land exclusion from the data bank. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the authority must independently assess a property's nature and suitability for paddy cultivation, adhering to rule 4(4f), to ensure a valid and reasoned decision. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“I. “Call for the records reading to Ext. P11 and quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari ii) Declare that the property having an extent of 3.76 ares situated in Re-Survey No. 624/5-3, 6.11 ares situated in Re- Survey No. 625/2-4 and 67.02 ares situated in Re. Survey No. 626/3 in Block No.21 of Panachikkad Village, Kottayam Taluk is liable to be deleted from the data bank prepared for Panachikkad Village as per Act 28 of 2008 iii) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P8 Form 5 application in the light of law declared by this Hon’ble Court iv) Exempt the petitioner from producing the English translation of the documents in vernacular language and v) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
”[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by him 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.P11 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P8 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 speak
