Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33158
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Dharamajan K.S. – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 18396 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sarun Rajan
For the Respondents: Deepa V
The authorised officer must conduct an independent assessment of the land's character, including personal inspection or satellite imagery analysis, as per Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, rather than relying exclusively on an external report.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order passed by the jurisdictional officer rejecting Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The contention was that the officer failed to independently verify the status of the land as of the relevant cutoff date and relied solely on the agricultural officer's report without conducting an inspection or obtaining satellite evidence. The central issue was whether the statutory authority properly exercised its discretion to exclude land from the data bank. The Court held that the competent authority is obligated to carry out an independent assessment of the land's nature and suitability for paddy cultivation as of 12.08.2008, and failing to adhere to Rule 4(4f) of the Rules renders the decision unsustainable. The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the authority to reconsider the application by conducting a personal inspection or obtaining satellite imagery within the specified timeframe.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of writ petition and challenge against order rejecting land conversion application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. statutory duty of authorities to independently assess land and issue reasoned orders. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P2 Order bearing File No.413/2024 dated 18.10.2024 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same;
II. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to remove the property of the petitioner having an extent of 10.77 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.51/18 in Block No.005 of Arookutty Village, in Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha District from the Data Bank prepared for the Arookutty GramaPanchayath;
III. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
IV. Petitioner undertakes that the English translation of the vernacular documents will be produced as and when directed by this Hon’ble Court.”[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 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.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 Vi
