Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33888
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Harisankar V. Menon, J
Vannarath Gopalan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 21412 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kaleeswaram Raj, Kum.Thulasi K. Raj, Tharun Philip
For the Respondents: P.M.Pareeth, Aishwarya Venugopal, Najeeb P.S, Tarun Philip, Sylaja S.L., GP
An application under Form 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, requires a reasoned decision based on physical verification of the land's nature and status as of the appointed date, avoiding reliance on deficient satellite reports.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner contended that the subject property, in his possession for over four decades, was not paddy land and was excluded from the Data Bank. The Petitioner relied on previous permissions for construction and reports allegedly excluding his land from the Data Bank. The core issue is whether the Revenue Divisional Officer correctly determined the land status and conversion date (prior to 12.08.2008) in accordance with the 2008 Rules. The Court found that the impugned order failed to consider the petitioner's contentions adequately and relied on a satellite report that lacked physical verification and data as on 2008. The Court emphasized that statutory applications must be considered through proper physical inspection and inquiry to determine the nature of the land. The Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the authority is directed to reconsider the Form 5 application within four months after an opportunity for hearing and mandatory physical verification.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disputed land classification and application for conversion under the 2008 rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. requirement for evidence-based decision making and physical inspection in land status determination. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. obligation of the competent authority to re-examine land applications strictly in compliance with established precedents. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 52 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 227/114 (Old Sy. No. 227/2B) of Pappinisseri Village, Kannur District. According to the petitioner, the said property has been in his possession for more than four decades. The petitioner states that the property was never treated as paddy land and was not included in the Data Bank. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on Ext. P3 permission issued by the Panchayat, whereby the petitioner was permitted to construct a compound wall in respect of the property comprised in Sy. No. 227/2B.
2. The petitioner further submits that, as evident from Ext. P4 draft Data Bank, though Sy. No. 227/2B is shown therein, such inclusion pertains to certain properties owned by third parties and not to the property owned by the petitioner. Reliance is also placed on Ext. P5 proceedings of the Agricultural Officer, wherein a decision was allegedly taken to delete the petitioner's property from the Data Bank. Reference is made to Sl. No. 28 of the schedule appended to Ext. P5 in support of the said contention.
3. The petitioner further relies upon Ext. P6 final Data Bank dated 23.06.2020 and contends that even therein, the property in question does not find a place in the Data Bank. 4. Notwithstanding the aforesaid materials, the petitioner contends that Ext. P8 order came to be issued by the Agricultural Officer when the petitioner submitted an application for development of the property. By Ext. P8, the Agricultural Officer found that the property had not been converted prior to the year 2008 and, therefore, was liable to be retained in the Data Bank. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Agricultural Officer also placed reliance on the report of the KSREC produced as Ext. P9.
5. In such circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application in Form 5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, which has now been rejected by Ext. P13 order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), on account of which, the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition.
6. I have heard Sri. Tharun Philip, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt. Shylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.
7. According to Sri. Tharun, the rejection of the Form 5 application pursuant to Ext.P13 is bad for more than one reason. Firstly, it is contended that the property was never included in the Data Bank, as stated earlier. Secondly, it is submitted that Ext. P13 was issued without proper consideration of the various contentions raised by the petitioner. Thirdly, it is pointed out that even Ext. P9 KSREC report indicates that no physical verification was conducted and that data relating to the position as on 2008 is not available.
8. Per contra, Smt. Shylaja placed reliance on Ext.
R9(b) final Data Bank, wherein the petitioner’s property is included. She also referred to the findings in Ext. P8 to contend that the property is low-lying and waterlogged.
9. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the connected records.
10. A perusal of the impugned order at Ext. P13 would show that the Form 5 application has been rejected without adverting to the various contentions raised by the petitioner, as noticed earlier. This Court is also of the view that the KSREC report at Ext. P9 indicates that buildings were in existence as early as 2003. Further, the said report states that no physical verification was conducted and that data relating to the position as on 2008 is not available.
11. Insofar as the issue arising for conside
