1. Petition challenging rejection of Form-5 application under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 65096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
Parameswaran V – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 31708 OF 2026
Important Points
The authorized officer must independently assess the nature of the land through personal inspection or satellite imagery under Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, rather than relying exclusively on a report from the Agricultural Officer.
Subject
Land Law - Paddy Land and Wetland
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Land Law - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 - Exclusion from Data Bank - Rejection of Form-5 application based solely on an Agricultural Officer's report without independent inspection or satellite imagery as mandated under Rule 4(4f) is legally unsustainable. (Para 4)
(B) Administrative Law - Speaking Order - The competent authority is required to pass a reasoned speaking order when dismissing or allowing a petition to ensure transparency and legality. (Para 4, 5)
Issues: Whether the order rejecting the Form-5 application was passed in compliance with the statutory requirements of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
(B) Administrative Law - Speaking Order - The competent authority is required to pass a reasoned speaking order when dismissing or allowing a petition to ensure transparency and legality. (Para 4, 5)
Issues: Whether the order rejecting the Form-5 application was passed in compliance with the statutory requirements of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mini V.A., Anju K.A.
For the Respondents: Joemon Antony
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mini V.A., Anju K.A.
For the Respondents: Joemon Antony
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends authorised officer failed to consider contentions; respondent defends based on agricultural officer's report. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Authorised officer failed to comply with statutory requirements by relying solely on agricultural officer's report without independent inspection. (Para 4 )
4. Competent authority must assess land's nature, lie, character and suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008. (Para 5 )
5. What must the authorised officer consider under Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008?
The authorised officer must conduct independent inspection or call for satellite pictures, not rely solely on the agricultural officer's report. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. What are the decisive criteria for excluding property from the data bank under the Rules?
The decisive criteria are the nature, lie and character of the land and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008. (Para 5 )
7. What is the consequence if the authorised officer fails to comply with Rule 4(4f) when deciding a Form-5 application?
The order is set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration with directions to conduct inspection or obtain satellite pictures. (Para 4 , 5 )
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P(C) No. 31708 of 2026
-------------------------------
Dated this the 01st day of October, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
i) Call for the records leading to issuance of Ext.P7 and quash the same issuing a writ of certiorari;
ii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P7 order on the basis of Ext.P5 and P6 orders and allow the same, within a time frame;
iii) issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
And iv) This Honourable Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of English translation of Malayalam documents."[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 ofÏcer 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 ofÏcer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The impugned order was passed by the authorised ofÏcer solely based on the report of the Agricultural OfÏcer. There is no indication in the order that the authorised ofÏcer 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 ofÏcer. Moreover, the authorised ofÏcer 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 OfÏcer [2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional O Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional OfÏcer/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.P7 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider the Form – 5 application in accordance with the law. The authorised ofÏcer 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 ofÏcer 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 ofÏcer 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.
