Kerala High Court Quashes Rejection of Land Reclassification Application Under Wetland Act—”Court Observed Impugned Order Lacked Findings on Land’s Nature and No Procedural Compliance Under Rule 4(4f) for Reclassification of ‘Paddy land to Garden Land’

Court’s Decision

The Kerala High Court quashed Ext. P3 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (2nd respondent) rejecting the petitioner’s application under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The Court directed the authority to reconsider the application (Ext. P2) afresh, strictly in accordance with law and judicial precedents, after proper inspection or calling for satellite imagery as per Rule 4(4f). The Court held:

“There has been total non-application of the mind in passing Ext.P3 order.”

Facts

The petitioner owned 6.875 Ares of land in Survey Nos. 72/1 and 73/1 of Kakkodi Village, Kozhikode Taluk. The land was classified in official records as ‘Nilam’ (paddy land) and included in the official Data Bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. However, the petitioner asserted that the property was a garden land and incapable of being used for paddy cultivation.

To rectify the classification, the petitioner submitted Form 5 application (Ext. P2) under Rule 4(d) of the 2008 Rules. The Revenue Divisional Officer (2nd respondent), relying solely on the reports of the Village Officer and Agricultural Officer—which claimed the land was waterlogged and had been converted post-2008—passed Ext. P3 order rejecting the application.

The grievance raised was that the officer failed to independently assess the land’s character, inspect it physically, or obtain satellite images, as mandated by Rule 4(4f).

Issues

1. Whether the 2nd respondent erred in mechanically rejecting the Form 5 application based solely on local officer reports.
2. Whether there was non-compliance with Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.
3. Whether Ext. P3 order showed non-application of mind and violated binding legal principles.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The land is a garden land not suitable for paddy cultivation.
• Ext. P3 was passed without an independent inspection or application of mind.
• The officer failed to consider the land’s status as on 12.08.2008, the date on which the Act came into force.
• The officer did not adhere to the mandatory procedure under Rule 4(4f), which requires inspection or satellite imagery.
• The rejection was mechanical and lacked judicial reasoning.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State, represented by the Government Pleader, defended the order based on the local officers’ reports which stated that the land was waterlogged and converted post-2008.

Analysis of the Law

Rule 4(4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, mandates the Revenue Divisional Officer to independently ascertain the nature and usability of the land for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008. The Court reiterated that this includes inspecting the land or procuring satellite imagery from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (7th respondent).

The Court also noted the well-settled principle that the lie, nature, and character of the land, as it existed when the Act came into force, must govern its classification or declassification.

Precedent Analysis

The Court relied on multiple precedents that emphasized the importance of determining the nature of the land as on 12.08.2008:

• Muraleedharan Nair R. v. RDO (2023 (4) KHC 524): Highlighted the obligation to assess whether land was capable of paddy cultivation as on the cut-off date.
• Sudheesh U. v. RDO, Palakkad (2023 (2) KLT 386): Stressed proper evaluation before retention of land in the Data Bank.
• Joy K.K. v. RDO/Sub Collector, Ernakulam (2021 (1) KLT 433): Reaffirmed that mechanical reliance on field reports is insufficient.
• Mather Nagar Residents Assn. v. District Collector, Ernakulam (2020 (2) KHC 94): Held that waterlogging or fallowness alone does not qualify land as paddy land.
• Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO, Irinjalakuda (2023 (6) KHC 83): Clarified that capability for paddy cultivation is the prime criterion.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court observed that Ext. P3 order did not contain any finding as to the nature or condition of the land as on 12.08.2008. There was no independent application of mind or procedural compliance under Rule 4(4f). Specifically:

“The 2nd respondent has not rendered any finding regarding the nature, character or lie of the petitioner’s property as on the crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008.”

The Court concluded that the order was vitiated by non-application of mind and legal error.

Conclusion

The High Court allowed the writ petition with the following directions:

1. Ext. P3 order quashed.
2. 2nd respondent/authorised officer to reconsider Ext. P2 application in accordance with law.
3. Officer may inspect the land directly or obtain satellite imagery under Rule 4(4f), at the petitioner’s expense.
4. If satellite imagery is called for, the decision shall be made within three months of receipt. If inspection is chosen, the decision must be rendered within two months from the date of judgment.

Implications

This judgment reinforces procedural safeguards in land classification under the Kerala Wetland Act and affirms that mechanical reliance on subordinate officers’ reports is impermissible. It strengthens the jurisprudence on the need for objective, evidence-based, and legally compliant decision-making by revenue authorities in reclassification cases. The decision is expected to provide relief to landowners facing arbitrary classification under the Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Cancels ‘FIZIFREAK’ Trademark for Deceptive Similarity to ‘fi’zi:k’ and ‘FREE:K’ — “The Mark Incorporates Both Phonetic and Visual Elements of Petitioner’s Trademarks”