1. Paddy land and wetland — Application for exclusion from Data Bank under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Rules, 2008 — Rejection by authorised officer. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 65170
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
Sathyabhama – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Palakkad – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 33379 OF 2026
Important Points
The authorised officer must independently assess the nature and character of land as of 12.08.2008 via personal inspection or satellite imagery, rather than relying solely on an Agricultural Officer's report, before rejecting a Form-5 application for data bank exclusion.
Subject
Land Law - Paddy Land & Wetland
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Land Law - Data Bank Exclusion - Rejection of Form-5 application - An order passed by the authorised officer solely based on an Agricultural Officer's report, without personal inspection or satellite imagery as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, is unsustainable. (Para 4)
(B) Administrative Law - Speaking Order - The competent authority is obliged to independently assess the nature, lie, and character of the land as of 12.08.2008 and pass a speaking order when deciding on the exclusion of property from the data bank. (Para 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 obliged to independently assess the nature, lie, and character of the land as of 12.08.2008 and pass a speaking order when deciding on the exclusion of property from the data bank. (Para 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
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- property law
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil)
For the Respondents: Muhammed Hashim A
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil)
For the Respondents: Muhammed Hashim A
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contended that the authorised officer rejected Form-5 application without considering his contentions regarding land character. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Authorised officer failed to comply with statutory requirements and did not conduct personal inspection or examine satellite pictures as mandated. (Para 4 )
4. Competent authority must assess nature and character of land as on the cut-off date, not rely solely on Agricultural Officer's report. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Set aside impugned order and directed reconsideration of Form-5 application with personal inspection or satellite imagery as per Rules. (Para 5 )
6. What factors must the authorised officer consider while deciding a Form-5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Rules, 2008?
The authorised officer must assess the nature, lie, and character of the land and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on the cut-off date, and cannot rely solely on the Agricultural Officer's report. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Is personal inspection or satellite imagery mandatory for deciding exclusion from the Data Bank?
Yes, under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, the authorised officer must either conduct personal inspection or call for satellite pictures before deciding a Form-5 application. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. What is the requirement regarding a speaking order when deciding a Form-5 application?
Whether allowing or dismissing the application, the authorised officer must pass a speaking order as directed by the court in Vinumon v. District Collector. (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. 33379 OF 2026
Dated this the 1st day of October, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction and quash Ext.P6, Order dated 20.04.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent.
ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction and direct the 2nd respondent to delete the petitioner’s property comprised in Re.Sy.No.102/6-13 (102/6) in Block No.4 of Vaniyamkulam-I Village, Ottapalam Taluk in Palakkad District having an extent of0.0250 Hectare from Ext.P4, Data Bank.
iii) It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may dispense the production of English Translation of the documents produced in the above W.P.(c) and Petitioner undertakes to produce the same as and when required by this Hon’ble Court.
And iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice ”[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd 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 3rd respondent/authorised o to reconsider Ext.P5 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 Collect
