Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Parecatty Ouseph Varghese – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 18418 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Avaneesh Koyikkara, Manjusha K.U., Ashwin Sunil Kumar, Nandana Suresh
For the Respondents: Deepa V.
An authorised officer deciding on the exclusion of land from the Data Bank must exercise independent verification, including site inspection or satellite imagery analysis, to determine the land's nature as on the crucial statutory date.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order rejecting an application for removing property from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner contended that the authority failed to properly assess the land's nature and character. The court found that the authority failed to conduct a site inspection or examine satellite imagery as required by law. The core issues were whether the authority exercised its discretion properly and whether it followed the statutory mandate to verify if the land was a paddy field or wetland on the crucial date of 12.08.2008. The court held that the authority must independently assess the land's nature using scientific evidence and field inspection to ensure compliance with the statutory principles governing data bank exclusions. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the authorised officer to pass a reasoned order within a fixed timeframe.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to order rejecting paddy land data bank removal application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirement for independent investigation and speaking orders by authorities. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i. To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing Exhibit P4 Order as unjust and illegal;
ii. To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing Exhibit P2 to the extent to which the land of the petitioner is included as paddy land in the Data Bank prepared by the 4th respondent;
iii. To declare the land in question does not fall under the purview of a paddy land or wet land defined in the Act and therefore liable to be removed from the Data Bank;
iv. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders removing the entries regarding the petitioner’s property from the Data Bank, after strictly following the procedures prescribed in law and take steps to publish an erratum notification in Kerala Gazette for the same, within a time frame of two months or such period as this Hon’ble Court may fix;
v. Pass any other orders or directions that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice.
vi. Dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language.
And vii. Award cost. ”
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd 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.P4 order is set aside.
2. The 3rd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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
