Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed the authorised officer to reconsider a landowner’s Form-5 request seeking removal of his property from the paddy land and wetland data bank, after finding that the earlier rejection lacked the required reasoning. The dispute concerned a small plot said to have remained barren and unsuitable for paddy cultivation, supported by scientific and local evidence. The Court noted that authorised officers appear to rely on uniform, pre-drafted formats when deciding such applications, compelling citizens to repeatedly approach the Court and resulting in repetitive judicial orders. Holding that this practice cannot continue, the Court imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the former Revenue Divisional Officer and required proper, independent application of the statutory criteria.

The matter concerns a landowner who jointly owns 0.0203 hectares in Re-Survey No.645/13 of Block No.50 in Kannadi-II Village, Palakkad Taluk. The property, though described as “Nilam” in revenue records, had remained barren for several years. The petitioner stated that nearby lands had been converted long ago and that the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) had erroneously included the land in the data bank. A Form-5 application was submitted seeking removal of the land from the data bank. The Agricultural Officer reported that the land was barren but could be used for paddy cultivation and that there was no evidence of conversion prior to 2008.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Removal Of Branch Post Master Who Embezzled Deposits; “Relationship Of A Customer With A Banker Is Of Mutual Trust”

The KSREC report showed the land as paddy in 1967, fallow in 2008, 2010, and 2011, and having vegetation in 2017 and 2022. The petitioner relied on photographs to show surrounding conversions and referred to precedent holding that fallow or low-lying land cannot be treated as paddy or wetland without statutory characteristics.

The authorised officer dismissed the Form-5 application through a standard form order. The petitioner challenged it before the High Court, which set aside the order and directed reconsideration with reference to the Agricultural Officer’s report, KSREC data, and applicable law. A fresh order was thereafter issued, repeating the same reasoning and language found in the earlier order, again rejecting the application.

When this second order was challenged, the Court examined the statutory scheme under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the 2008 Rules, particularly provisions governing Form-5 proceedings, reports of Agricultural and Village Officers, KSREC reliance, and the requirement of a speaking order. The Court took note of the affidavit filed by the authorised officer stating that the order was prepared by a Junior Superintendent and signed due to time constraints.

The Court observed that Form-5 orders were frequently issued in a stereotypical manner: “90% of the orders passed by the authorised officers… are similar. They will first narrate the report… and thereafter, by blindly accepting the report… dismiss the Form-5 applications.” It recorded that this led to repeated litigation where the Court was compelled to pass “stereotypical judgments.”

Regarding statutory purpose, the Court noted that the Act was enacted “to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system.” For this reason, declarations of paddy land must be made with caution because “none should be deprived of enjoying their property, which is a constitutional right.”

On the duty of authorised officers, the Court stated that a Form-5 application requires independent assessment: “Thereafter, a speaking order is to be passed.” The Court quoted earlier precedent explaining that inclusion or exclusion depends on the land’s character on 12.08.2008, not on hypothetical cultivation capability.

The Court cited the KSREC data showing the land as fallow for several years and referred to precedent stating: “merely because the property is lying fallow… it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land under the Act.”

In reviewing the second impugned order, the Court observed: “Paragraphs… are nothing but the same sentences and the same discussion.” It described this as non-compliance with the earlier judgment, recording: “This is nothing but contempt of the directions issued by this Court.”

The affidavit filed by the officer prompted further observations. The Court stated: “I am astonished to see such an affidavit… He states that the file was submitted by the Junior Superintendent… and he only signed it.” This was described as “the manner in which a quasi-judicial authority is acting.”

Addressing the need for speaking orders, the Court cited the Supreme Court stating that “reasons are heartbeat of every order.” It laid out a detailed table identifying elements of a valid speaking order and recorded that such clarity is essential for “transparency and accountability.”

The Court held that the authorised officer should have allowed the application considering KSREC findings, surrounding conversion, and statutory requirements.

The Court directed that “Ext.P9 is set aside, and the authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form-5 application in the light of the observation in this judgment, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.”

“Sri. Sreejith S., Deputy Collector (General), Kottayam, is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the petitioner as cost, from his pocket, for unnecessarily dragging him to this Court.”

“The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary, State of Kerala, and the Chief Secretary will instruct his subordinates to forward a copy of this judgment to all the authorized officers appointed in accordance with Rules 2008 to consider Form-5 applications, and such authorized officers shall pass orders in Form-5 applications containing the details mentioned in the table extracted in paragraph 22.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court Quashes Refusal Of Compassionate Appointment Under Kerala Education Rules; Remarriage Of Widow Dependent No Bar To Statutory Right

“If there is any violation of the directions of this Court in future, this Court will be forced to initiate appropriate steps. The Chief Secretary will also forward this judgment to the Disciplinary Authority of Sri. Sreejith S, who is now working as the Deputy Collector (General), Kottayam, and the Disciplinary Authority, will take appropriate steps in accordance with the law if there is any dereliction of duty on his part. However, I make it clear that, if any disciplinary proceedings are initiated, the Disciplinary Authority should take appropriate steps untrammelled by any observation in this judgment, and the Disciplinary Authority can decide it independently and should not be influenced by this judgment.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: Adv. V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil)
For the Respondents: Spl. Government Pleader S. Renjith

Case Title: Vinumon C. v. District Collector & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:83912
Case Number: WP(C) No. 984 of 2025
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan