Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Indukumar A K – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 10433 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Muhasin K.M., Farhana K.H.
For the Respondents: Jessy S.Salim
The authority is required to conduct an independent assessment of the land's nature and character as of 12.08.2008, using either physical inspection or satellite imagery, before deciding on a Form-5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order rejecting a Form-5 application for land conversion under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The court found that the authority failed to independently inspect the property or utilize satellite imagery as mandated by Rule 4(4f), relying solely on an agricultural report. The Court reaffirmed that the decisive criterion for data bank exclusion is the nature and character of the land as it stood on 12.08.2008. The primary issue was whether the statutory authority acted in accordance with established procedure and case law regarding the evaluation of land status. The court held that the authority is legally obliged to perform an objective assessment, including personal inspection or satellite data analysis, to determine suitability for paddy cultivation before rejecting an application. Failure to provide a reasoned, evidence-based assessment invalidates the order. The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the authority is directed to reconsider the application afresh according to law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of writ petition and grievances regarding property classification. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirement for independent assessment and procedural compliance in land conversion. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“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 2nd respondent or the officer authorized under section 2(XVA) of the Act to reconsider Ext P2 application and pass orders afresh after obtaining a report from the 7th respondent, KSREC with regard to the nature of the property as on 2008.
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 7th respondent to file a report before the 2nd respondent or the officer authorized under section 2(XVA) of the Act and 6th respondent with regard to nature and lie of the petitioner’s property in 2008.
iv. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.
v. To 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 Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting Ext.P2 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 2nd respondent / authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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 applications 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
