Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31649
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
Rasiyabi T.P. – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer – Respondent
WP(C) No. 15823 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Rakesh
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 nature and suitability for cultivation as of 2008, including reliance on satellite imagery or personal inspection as mandated by law.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order rejecting an application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 for removing land from the data bank. The court examined whether the authority complied with Rule 4(4f), which requires an independent assessment of the land's nature and suitability as of 2008. The court found that the authority failed to conduct a personal inspection or utilize satellite imagery, relying solely on the report of an Agricultural Officer. The main issues addressed were the necessity of independent fact-finding by the authorized officer and the mandatory requirement to consider surrounding paddy fields in such applications. The ratio decidendi established that the competent authority must independently determine the nature of the land and suitability for cultivation as of the relevant date, adhering to the mandates of the 2008 Rules and relevant judicial precedents. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the authority was directed to reconsider the application by conducting a personal inspection or obtaining satellite images within a specified timeframe.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the challenge against the rejection of a land conversion application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. failure of the statutory authority to independently verify land classification via prescribed methods. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions;
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the prayer made by the petitioner for removal of property from the data bank after setting aside Exhibit P1;
iii) Declare that the property of the petitioner is not a paddy land as the same is converted before 2008;
iv) Dispense with the filing of English translation of Vernacular documents;
v) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble 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 her 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.P1 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider the 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.
