Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33614
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Kavitha S – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Collector (RR) – Respondent
WP(C) No. 15844 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.A.Unnikrishnan, Rohith R, Arjun Varma, T. Sreelakshmin Unnikrishnan
For the Respondents: Deepa V
Competent authorities must conduct an independent assessment of a land's nature and suitability for paddy cultivation as of the relevant statutory date, properly considering available expert reports, before rejecting an application for exclusion from the data bank.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the authorized officer rejecting an application for the removal of land from the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner contended that the authority failed to properly consider relevant reports and independent findings regarding the nature and character of the land. The core issue was whether the statutory authority properly determined the suitability of the land for paddy cultivation as of the relevant date. The Court observed that the authority failed to account for existing technical reports and did not conduct the mandatory independent assessment of the land's nature, lie, and character as required by settled precedents regarding the evidentiary threshold for data bank exclusion. The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the authority to reconsider the application within a specified timeframe, either through site inspection or updated satellite imaging, ensuring a reasoned speaking order is provided.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the relief sought and the nature of the challenge regarding a statutory application rejection. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the requirement for statutory authorities to conduct independent evaluations and apply settled judicial criteria when determining land classification. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P3 order and issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ order or direction quashing the same.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to reconsider Exhibit P2 application and allow the same.
iii) dispense with the translation of documents produced in the Vernacular Language.
iv) Grant such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by her 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. Even though 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 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.P3 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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.
