The Kerala High Court has set aside an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur, which rejected a Form-5 application filed under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The Court directed the competent authority to reconsider the application afresh in accordance with the statutory procedure.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan passed the order on October 30, 2025, in Nishand T.S. v. State of Kerala & Ors., WP(C) No. 40513 of 2025.
The petitioner, Nishand T.S., aged 44 years, son of Soman, Thandassery House, Western Nagar P.O., Manalur Village, Thrissur, was represented by Advocates P.A. Gireesh Kumar, Dhilna Tonson and Aiswarya B.S.
Reliefs Sought
The petitioner sought two main reliefs before the High Court. He asked the Court to quash Ext. P5, by which the second respondent rejected his Form-5 application. He also sought a direction to the second respondent to reconsider Ext. P4 application afresh.
The dispute concerned a Form-5 application filed under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. Such an application is used to seek exclusion of land from the data bank.
Background Of The Case
The petitioner approached the High Court after the authorised officer rejected his application by order dated October 16, 2024. The materials placed before the Court included a sale deed dated November 27, 2014, a tax receipt dated May 24, 2025, an extract of the data bank dated January 25, 2021, and the Form-5 application dated March 4, 2024.
The petitioner challenged the legality of the rejection order. At the outset, the Court noted that the main grievance was that the authorised officer had failed to consider the petitioner’s case in the manner required by law.
Petitioner’s Submissions
The petitioner argued that the authorised officer had not properly examined his case before rejecting the Form-5 application. Though the judgment does not reproduce lengthy submissions, it clearly records the substance of the challenge.
According to the petitioner, the impugned order did not reflect an independent application of mind. He contended that the authority had rejected the application only on the basis of the report of the Agricultural Officer.
The petitioner also argued that the competent authority had to follow the statutory framework while deciding a Form-5 application. In particular, he contended that the authority had not complied with Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
His grievance was not limited to the final conclusion in Ext. P5. He also challenged the process that led to that conclusion. The petitioner maintained that the authorised officer should have independently assessed the land instead of relying solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report.
He further contended that the authority had failed to record any independent finding on the nature and character of the land on the relevant date. He also pointed out that the authority had not considered whether exclusion of the property would adversely affect the surrounding paddy fields.
In essence, the petitioner argued that the authority rejected the application without conducting the enquiry required by law, without complying with Rule 4(4f), and without considering the relevant legal factors.
Respondents’ Stand
The Court heard Government Pleader Deepa V. for the respondents. However, the judgment does not record any detailed counter-submissions on behalf of the State or departmental authorities.
Court’s Findings
After hearing both sides and examining the impugned order, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan found merit in the petitioner’s grievance.
The Court observed that the authorised officer had passed the order solely on the basis of the Agricultural Officer’s report. The Court found no indication that the authorised officer had personally inspected the property. It also found no indication that the officer had called for satellite pictures, though Rule 4(4f) requires such an exercise.
The Court further noted that the authorised officer had not recorded any independent finding on the nature and character of the land as on the relevant date. According to the Court, that omission went to the root of the matter.
The Court also found that the authority had failed to examine whether exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. The Court treated this as another important omission.
Reliance On Earlier Judgments
The High Court referred to three earlier decisions:
Muraleedharan Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524]
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386]
Joy K.K. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT 433]
Relying on these precedents, the Court reiterated that the competent authority must assess the nature, lie and character of the land, and also its suitability for paddy cultivation as on August 12, 2008. These factors, the Court said, form the decisive criteria for considering whether land can be excluded from the data bank.
The Court held that the impugned order did not satisfy the principles laid down in those judgments.
Final Directions
In view of these findings, the Court set aside Ext. P5 and directed the second respondent to reconsider Ext. P4 Form-5 application in accordance with law.
The Court further directed the authorised officer to either conduct a personal inspection of the property or call for satellite pictures under Rule 4(4f), at the petitioner’s cost, if such pictures had not already been obtained.
The Court clarified the timelines as well. If the authority calls for satellite pictures, it must dispose of the application within three months from the date of receipt of those pictures. If the authority chooses to conduct a personal inspection, it must decide the application within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of the judgment.
Outcome
The Kerala High Court thus allowed the writ petition filed by Nishand T.S. It quashed the order rejecting his Form-5 application and directed the competent authority to take a fresh decision by following the statutory requirements and the principles laid down in earlier judgments.
