Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31914
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Sadik – Appellant
Versus
Sub Collector – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 16482 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Rakesh
For the Respondents: K. Janardhana Shenoy
The authorized officer must independently assess the nature and character of land as of August 12, 2008, through personal inspection or satellite imagery before deciding on applications to exclude property from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Form-5 application by the competent authority under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner sought the exclusion of the subject property from the Data Bank, arguing that it could not be classified as paddy land. The Court found that the impugned order was passed without complying with statutory mandates, specifically the requirement to assess the nature and character of the land through personal inspection or satellite imagery analysis, and failed to consider whether the exclusion would affect surrounding agricultural fields. The main issue was whether the authorized officer erred in rejecting the application without conducting the necessary independent assessment mandated by the Rules and judicial precedents. The Court emphasized the ratio that the competent authority is obliged to assess the suitability of the land as paddy land as of August 12, 2008, and must provide a reasoned, speaking order addressing the land's nature and character in relation to statutory requirements. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the authority was directed to reconsider the application in accordance with the law, either through a personal inspection or by calling for satellite imagery analysis within the stipulated timeframe.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeking exclusion of land from paddy data bank due to procedural lapse. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirement for independent authoritative inspection and reasoned orders in land reclassification. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i) Call for records leading up to Exhibit P2 and set aside 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 1st respondent to exclude the property of the petitioner from the data bank on the basis of the dictum of this Hon’ble Court in Niyas Vs. District Collector, Palakkad (2023(6) KLT 118)
iii) Declare that the property of the petitioner cannot be classified as paddy land as defined under Section 2 (xii) of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.
iv) Dispense with the filing of the 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 1st respondent rejecting the 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.P2 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider the 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 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.
