Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32383
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Gayathri M Vinod – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer Thrissur – Respondent
WP(C) No. 18635 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: John Tony Akkara, Ganesh Chandran S.
For the Respondents: Vidya Kuriakose, P.P.Thajudheen
The authorized officer under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 is mandated to conduct an independent assessment of the land's character, including physical inspection or satellite image verification, before deciding on a Form-5 application, ensuring strict compliance with statutory procedural requirements.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order rejecting an application filed in Form-5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, seeking exclusion of land from the data bank. The court examined the validity of the impugned order, which was passed without independent assessment or physical inspection by the authorized officer. The court determined that the failure to evaluate the land's nature and character or to verify satellite imagery as required by Rule 4(4f) of the Rules rendered the decision legally unsustainable. The core issue was whether the authorized officer acted in compliance with the statutory requirements when deciding the Form-5 application. Relying on settled precedents, the court found the ratio decidendi to be that the competent authority has a mandatory obligation to assess the suitability of the land for paddy cultivation as of the date of the Act's commencement (12.08.2008). The court reinforced that an independent finding based on objective verification is essential for such administrative decisions. The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside, with the matter remanded to the authorized officer for fresh consideration in accordance with the law and specific procedural mandates.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. failure to follow statutory procedure for land exclusion applications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirement for independent assessment and speaking order by authority. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or orders by call for records with regards to Ext P3 orders and set aside the same and to exclude the land from data bank as per provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act since the said orders are illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law.
(ii) To issue any other writ, order or direction appropriate in the circumstances of this 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.P3 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.
