Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Jinu S Baby – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17947 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manavi Muraleedharan
For the Respondents: Vidya Kuriakose
An authorised officer deciding an application for land exclusion under the Paddy Land and Wetland Rules must independently assess the property's status through site inspection or satellite imagery rather than relying solely on departmental reports.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged an order rejecting their application to exclude land from the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The court examined whether the authority complied with statutory mandates regarding site assessment. It was held that an authorised officer must independently verify the land's character and cannot rely solely on a subordinate report. The main issue was whether the statutory requirement of Rule 4(4f) was satisfied by the impugned order. The court reasoned that the authority is obligated to consider satellite imagery or personal inspection to determine the land's status as of 12.08.2008, and failing such an assessment vitiates the decision. Principles regarding natural justice and the requirement of reasoned orders were applied. The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the authority is directed to reconsider the application according to the prescribed law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the request for relief and the context of the rejected application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirement for independent assessment using mandated site inspection or satellite imagery. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
“(i) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction and quash Exhibit P5 report passed by the 1st respondents.
(ii) To direct the 1st Respondent to consider Exhibit P4 expeditiously within a time frame.
(ii) To dispense with filing of the translation of Vernacular Documents.
(iii) Allow the Writ petition with costs.
(iii) Grant such other further reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct in the facts and circumstances of the case.” (SIC)
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Ext.P5 order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by them under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioners is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioners.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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.P5 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 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 speaking order, as directed by this Court in the judgment dated 05.11.2025 in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT
275], shall be passed.
