1. Challenge to order rejecting Form-5 application under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 65164
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
Mohammed Musthafa K P – Appellant
Versus
Revenue Divisional Officer – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 32937 OF 2026
Important Points
The authorised officer must independently assess the nature and character of land via personal inspection or satellite imagery, rather than relying solely on an Agricultural Officer's report, when deciding on the exclusion of land from the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules.
Subject
Land Law - Paddy Land and Wetland
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Land Law - Exclusion from Data Bank - Statutory Requirements - Reliance solely on the report of the Agricultural Officer without independent inspection or satellite imagery as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, is insufficient and fails to comply with statutory requirements. (Para 4)
(B) Administrative Law - Speaking Order - The competent authority is required to pass a speaking order when dismissing or allowing a petition to ensure transparency and legality in the decision-making process. (Para 4, 5)
Issues: Whether the order rejecting the Form-5 application was valid given the lack of independent inspection or satellite imagery by the authorised officer.
(B) Administrative Law - Speaking Order - The competent authority is required to pass a speaking order when dismissing or allowing a petition to ensure transparency and legality in the decision-making process. (Para 4, 5)
Issues: Whether the order rejecting the Form-5 application was valid given the lack of independent inspection or satellite imagery by the authorised officer.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Muhammed Jaseel, Mithun Baby John, Nidheesh Mohan, Govind V.I., Namitha Prasad, A.S. Ashwaraj, Sonu K. Chacko, Sahla K.K.
For the Respondents: Muhammed Hashim A
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Muhammed Jaseel, Mithun Baby John, Nidheesh Mohan, Govind V.I., Namitha Prasad, A.S. Ashwaraj, Sonu K. Chacko, Sahla K.K.
For the Respondents: Muhammed Hashim A
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends authorized officer failed to consider contentions; order based solely on Agricultural Officer report without independent assessment. (Para 3 )
3. Authorized officer failed to comply with statutory requirements and did not independently assess nature of land or call for satellite pictures. (Para 4 )
4. Competent authority must assess nature, lie and character of land as on 12.08.2008 for exclusion from data bank. (Para 5 )
5. Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; application to be reconsidered with personal inspection or satellite pictures and speaking order. (Para 5 )
6. What is the mandatory duty of the authorized officer under Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008?
The authorized officer must either personally inspect the property or call for satellite pictures to independently verify the nature and character of the land. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. What criteria determine whether property merits exclusion from the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008?
The competent authority must assess the nature, lie, and character of the land and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008. (Para 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.
---------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 32937 OF 2026
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of October, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
I. To call for the records leading issuance of Exhibit P6 and set aside the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other writ, order or direction and restore Exhibit P4 application;
II. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction ordering the 1st respondent to allow Exhibit P4 application preferred by the petitioner within a time limit as may be prescribed by this Hon'ble Court;
III. Dispense with the production of documents in Malayalam (vernacular);
IV. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper ”[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by him 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 OfÏcer, 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.P6 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P4 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 the judgment dated 05.11.2025 in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.
