Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31639
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Sainudeen – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 10752 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Muhasin K.M., Farhana K.H.
For the Respondents: K.Janardhana Shenoy
An authority rejecting a Form-5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules must independently assess the land's status as of 2008 via personal inspection or scientific satellite evidence rather than relying solely on departmental reports.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge to an order rejecting an application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 for excluding property from the data bank. The petitioner contended that the authority failed to properly assess the property's nature as of 2008. The Court found that the rejection was based solely on an agricultural officer's report without independent inspection or satellite imagery, failing to meet statutory requirements. The main issue was whether the competent authority complied with the rules in determining the land's nature as of 2008. The court held that the authority must independently verify the land's lie and suitability for paddy cultivation, considering whether exclusion impacts surrounding fields. The ratio is that reliance solely on an agricultural report without personal inspection or scientific data constitutes a failure of duty. The Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration based on scientific data or personal inspection.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to improper rejection of form-5 application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirement for independent assessment via inspection or satellite data. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext P2 order and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent or the officer authorized under section 2(XVA) of the Act to reconsider Form 5 application and pass orders afresh after obtaining a report from the 7th respondent, KSREC with regard to the nature of the property as on 2008.
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 7th respondent to file a report before the 2nd respondent or the officer authorized under section 2(XVA) of the Act and 6th respondent with regard to nature and lie of the petitioner’s property in 2008.
iv. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.
v. To 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 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.P2 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider 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 Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275] shall be passed.
