'We Know How To Deal With Such Attitude': Kerala High Court Fines Officer For Non-Speaking Order In Paddy Land Case

"If statistics are examined regarding the writ petitions that set aside orders passed in Form-5 applications, it can be seen that this Court is often compelled to pass stereotypical judgments," the judge remarked.

However, Justice Kunhikrishnan added, "this Court knows how to deal with such attitudes from them" and imposed costs on the errant officer.

The Court also issued detailed guidelines on issuing speaking orders in Form-5 applications under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

For context, Form 5 applications are used for requesting the removal of land from the data bank of paddy and wetland for conversion.

The petitioner approached the Court challenging the order of the RDO rejecting his request to remove 0.0203 hectares of land from the paddy land data bank.

Petitioner claimed that though the land was classified as 'Nilam' (paddy field) in records, it had been barren for years with no water source or cultivation.

The Local Level Monitoring Committee "erroneously" included the property in the data bank of Kannadi Grama Panchayat, he argued.

The petitioner also submitted that the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) report described the property as 'fallow land'.

Despite a prior High Court order (in W.P.(C) No. 30506/2024) directing reconsideration, the same RDO, issued an almost identical rejection order, merely changing dates and formatting.

The Court observed that nearly 90% of Form-5 orders are passed using identical sentences without application of mind.

It then Court examined the Preamble and Statement of objects of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and observed that the Act is framed to promote growth in the agricultural sector and sustain the ecological system in the State. It observed that care must be taken to declare the property of a citizen as paddy land or wetland.

“When a citizen says that his property is not a paddy land or wetland, or it cannot be used as a paddy land, and an appropriate application is filed to remove his land from the data bank in which his property is included, a great and important duty is there to the authorised officer to consider that application.” the Court observed.

The Court observed that the subsequent order issued by the RDO, Sreejith S after the direction of the Court to reconsider the application was a repetition of the previous order and hence issued a show cause notice to RDO.

In the affidavit filed by the RDO, it was stated that the subsequent order was not prepared by him, but by the Junior Superintendent in the Office of the RDO as the RDO was in the midst of post-election -related duties and he was compelled to sign the order due to time limit fixed by the Court.

“Since a time limit was fixed by this Court and he was in the midst of post-election-related duties, he was compelled to sign the order prepared and drafted by a Junior Superintendent attached to his office! This is the manner in which a quasi-judicial authority is acting! The Officer is not a layman, but rather an experienced officer in the State Government. He filed an affidavit before this Court saying that the order in the Form-5 application was prepared by his Junior Superintendent, and he only signed it. What a state of affairs is this? This cannot continue.” the Court remarked.

The Court further observed that if the officer could not comply within the time-limit stipulated by the Court, he could have requested for an extension of time to comply with the order instead of signing an order prepared by the subordinate.

“This Officer cannot be left free by exonerating him, as requested by the Special Government Pleader. The Disciplinary Authority should consider whether there is any dereliction of duty from his side and, if so, take appropriate steps against the Officer in accordance with law.” court added.

The Court directed Sreejith S., now Deputy Collector (General), Kottayam, to personally pay Rs.10,000 as costs to the petitioner. The judgment also instructed the Chief Secretary to forward the ruling to the officer's disciplinary authority for possible departmental action.

Relying on Basudev Dutta v State of West Bengal [2024 KHC 6676], the Court emphasised on the requirements of Speaking order.

“A speaking order by a quasi-judicial authority should be a reasoned decision that clearly communicates findings, the logic behind conclusions, and legal bases for the action taken. Such orders must show that the authority has applied its mind, followed due process, considered the submissions, and given reasons for its decisions.” the bench observed.

The Court thus, issued detailed steps for writing a speaking order and observed that the speaking order must analyse the available evidence and the independent assessment of the authorised officer, to determine whether a Form 5 application is to be allowed or dismissed.

“The best practices for writing a speaking orders are to use clear and precise language and to avoid vague or generic statements. A speaking order is vital for ensuring transparency and accountability.” the bench added.

The High Court has directed the Chief Secretary of Kerala to circulate the judgment to all authorised officers handling Form-5 applications under the 2008 Rules to ensure the future orders are detailed and reasoned. It has also directed the Chief Secretary to initiate disciplinary proceedings against former RDO, if dereliction of duty is found.

Case Title: Vinumon C v The District Collector and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) 984/ 2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 734

Counsel for Petitioner: V A Johnson

Counsel for Respondent: S Ranjith (GP)