Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Shemir – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 10780 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vineeth Ramaraghavan
For the Respondents: K. Janardhana Shenoy
An authorized officer must conduct an independent assessment of a land's character and suitability for paddy cultivation as of the relevant date (12.08.2008) when processing applications for exclusion from the data bank, supported by a speaking order.
Headnote:The petitioner sought to challenge an order rejecting an application for the exclusion of property from the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner contended that the authorized officer failed to independently consider the nature and character of the land as of 2008. The court held that the authorized officer must conduct an assessment of the property's suitability for cultivation at the relevant time and consider the impact on surrounding fields, as required by law. The central issue was whether the statutory requirements for evaluating land status were met by the authority. The ratio decidendi established that the competent authority is legally obliged to perform an independent assessment of the land's lie and character as of 12.08.2008, and failure to properly consider technical reports constitutes a procedural lapse violating the mandate under the 2008 Rules. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside with directions to the respondent to reconsider the application according to law, either by conducting a site inspection or by evaluating satellite imagery within the specified timeframe.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of writ petition requesting removal from property databank. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. requirement for independent assessment of land usage as of 2008. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“1. Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents to remove the Exhibit-P1 series property form Exhibit P2 Databank.
2. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Exhibit-
P5 quoted decision of LLMC.
3. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Exhibit-
P5 quoted report of the 4th respondent.
4. Issue a Writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, setting aside anything and everything decreed by the 2nd respondent in Exhibit-P5 order.
5. Petitioner also prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the English translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language.
6. Issue any other order as the petitioner may seek at the time of hearing and this Honorable Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd 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 based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. Eventhough 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 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.P5 order is set aside.
2. The 2nd 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 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.
