Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32374
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Shamin – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17693 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Muhasin K.M., Farhana K.H.
For the Respondents: Vidya Kuriakose
The authorised officer is legally obligated to conduct an independent assessment of land usage as on the relevant date before rejecting a Form 5 application, ensuring due consideration is given to expert reports such as those from KSREC and the impact on surrounding lands.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order rejecting an application filed under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 for the removal of land from the data bank. The court noted that the authorised officer failed to conduct an independent assessment of the land's nature and character as of the relevant date, relying solely on an agricultural report while ignoring satellite data. The core issue was whether the statutory requirements for evaluating land status were met. The court observed that the authority is duty-bound to assess factors including the land's suitability for paddy cultivation on the relevant date and whether exclusion impacts surrounding fields, citing principles established in prior rulings. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the authority to reconsider the application either through personal inspection or by calling for satellite imagery within a specified timeframe.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petitioner's challenge to the rejection of a land conversion application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. failure of the statutory authority to independently evaluate land records and expert environmental reports. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext. P3 order and quash the same.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to reconsider petitioner’s Form 5 application and pass orders afresh taking note of Ext. P4 report from KSREC.
iii) To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.
iv) 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 3rd 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. Even though, KSREC report is available, the same is not properly considered by the authorised officer. 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.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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.
