26/11/2025
To:
All Revenue Divisional Officers (RDOs) and Authorized Officers,
Revenue Department
From
Principal Secretary (Revenue),
Revenue (B) Department,
**Subject:** Mandatory Guidelines for Issuing Speaking (Reasoned) Orders in Form-5 Applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 – Strict Compliance with Hon'ble Kerala High Court Judgement in *Vinumon C. v. The District Collector & Ors.* (W.P.(C) No. 984 of 2025, dated November 5, 2025)**
**Sir/Madam,**
1. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court, in its judgement dated November 5, 2025, in *Vinumon C. v. The District Collector & Ors.* (W.P.(C) No. 984 of 2025), has delivered scathing observations on the systemic failure of authorized officers, including Revenue Divisional Officers (RDOs), to issue reasoned (speaking) orders in Form-5 applications under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ("Rules 2008").
2. The Court has noted that "90% of [such] orders are disposed of with the same set of sentences without application of mind," leading to stereotypical, mechanical decisions that flout principles of natural justice, Article 300A of the Constitution, and binding precedents.
3. The judgement highlights egregious non-compliance even after judicial remands, as exemplified by the repetition of identical wording in subsequent orders (Exts. P6 and P9), amounting to contempt of court directions.
4. It imposes personal costs of Rs. 10,000/- on the errant officer (Sri. Sreejith S., then RDO, Palakkad), directs referral to the Disciplinary Authority for dereliction of duty, and mandates circulation of the judgement to all authorized officers.
5. The Court has further cautioned that future violations will compel judicial intervention, including costs on officers and disciplinary proceedings, to restore "trust in the system."
6. The Act 2008 and Rules 2008 aim to conserve paddy lands and wetlands for ecological and agricultural sustainability, as detailed in the Preamble and Statement of Objects and Reasons.
7. However, this noble objective cannot justify arbitrary deprivation of property rights.
8. Authorized officers, as quasi-judicial authorities, bear a "solemn duty" to independently assess land status as on August 12, 2008 (the Act's commencement date), relying on scientific evidence (e.g., KSREC reports) rather than blind acceptance of subordinate reports.
9. Orders must reflect application of mind, addressing facts, evidence, and law, to enable judicial review.
10. In compliance with the Court's directive (para 23(3)), this circular mandates immediate adoption of the prescribed structure for speaking orders (as outlined in para 22 of the judgement).
11. All RDOs/Authorized Officers shall henceforth issue orders strictly adhering to the step-by-step protocol detailed in points 12 to 48 below.
12. Non-compliance will attract personal liability, including costs, suspension of quasi-judicial powers, and Vigilance/Disciplinary referral.
13. Quarterly compliance reports shall be submitted to this office via District Collectors.
# # # # Step-by-Step Protocol for Processing Form-5 Applications and Issuing Speaking Orders
**Step 1: Receipt, Acknowledgment, and Preliminary Scrutiny (Within 3 Days of Receipt)**
14. Upon receiving a Form-5 application (for removal from data bank under Rule 4(d), Rules 2008), issue an acknowledgment receipt and enter details in the designated register (as per Rule 4(d)).
15. Specify tentative timelines for reports and hearing.
16. Conduct preliminary scrutiny: Verify basic documents (e.g., possession certificate, tax receipt, location sketch, photographs).
17. Identify if the land is classified as "paddy land" or "wetland" in revenue records and data bank.
18. Flag any prima facie evidence of pre-2008 conversion (e.g., via initial KSREC query).
19. **Judgement Emphasis:** Avoid "standardized templates or pre-drafted documents circulated among officers" (para 1).
20. Excuses like "time crunch" or delegation to subordinates (e.g., Junior Superintendents) are unacceptable; seek extensions from the District Collector if needed (para 19-20).
21. Personal application of mind is mandatory from the outset.
**Step 2: Obtaining Reports and Evidence (Within 30 Days of Acknowledgment)**
22. Direct the relevant officer: Agricultural Officer for paddy land claims (report within 1 month, per Rule 4(d)); Village Officer for other cases.
23. Insist on site inspection reports detailing land character/fitness as on August 12, 2008 (not post-conversion potential).
24. Independently obtain KSREC report (satellite imagery from 1967, 2008, 2010, etc.) to verify land use (e.g., fallow vs. paddy/wetland).
25. Cross-verify with thandaper, adangal, and LLMC recommendations.
26. If discrepancies (e.g., fallow land with vegetation, as in Ext.P7), order fresh inquiries.
27. Collect petitioner’s evidence (e.g., photos showing barren/low-lying nature, absence of water sources, adjacent conversions) and notify objectors/LLMC for counter-submissions.
28. **Judgement Emphasis:** Do not "blindly accept" subordinate reports (para 7).
29. Rely on "scientific data including satellite photographs from KSREC" if unsatisfied (para 14, *Arthasasthra Ventures* case).
30. Fallow land or seasonal water logging does not qualify as paddy/wetland (*Mather Nagar Residents Association*, 2020 (2) KHC 94, para 24).
**Step 3: Notice, Hearing, and Recordal (Scheduled Within 45 Days of Receipt)**
31. Issue notice to petitioner, objectors, LLMC, and reporting officers at least 15 days in advance, enclosing all reports/evidence.
32. Specify hearing details (physical/virtual) and agenda (e.g., "Verification of land status as on 12.08.2008").
33. Conduct personal hearing: Record proceedings verbatim (audio/video preferred), allow oral/written submissions, evidence rebuttal, and cross-examination.
34. Grant adjournments only for recorded reasons; no ex parte decisions.
35. Post-hearing, prepare a summary note of key submissions, unresolved issues, and additional evidence needed.
36. **Judgement Emphasis:** Adhere to audi alteram partem (hear both sides) and natural justice (para 21, *Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal*, 2024 KHC 6676).
37. Cryptic or mechanical orders post-hearing violate Article 300A (para 8).
**Step 4: Independent Analysis and Drafting the Speaking Order (Within 15 Days Post-Hearing)**
38. Analyze evidence independently: Assess land character/fitness as on August 12, 2008 (e.g., was it reclaimed with coconut trees or fallow? *Joy K.K. v. RDO*, 2021 (1) KHC 540, para 11).
39. Balance property rights with Act's objects (ecological conservation, para 9-10).
40. Draft the order in your own words (no copy-paste from reports/templates).
41. Structure it per the Court's mandated format (para 22), presented in separate paragraphs as follows: In the introduction paragraph, provide a brief summary of the facts, parties involved, and the context of the proceedings. In the next paragraph, detail the property, including the survey number, block, village, extent, and its classification in revenue records and the data bank. Follow this with a paragraph stating the exact date and reference number of the Form-5 filing. Then, in a dedicated paragraph, outline the legal provisions applicable, such as statutes and rules (e.g., Act 2008 Sections 2(1)(b), 3; Rules 2008 Rule 4(d)), along with the jurisdiction. Subsequently, summarize the submissions and evidence in a paragraph, covering the petitioner's case, objectors/LLMC views, and key evidence such as Agricultural/Village Officer reports, KSREC findings, photos, and site inspection details. In another paragraph, clearly state the issues for decision, such as "Whether the land qualifies as paddy/wetland as on 12.08.2008?" The core section on findings and reasoning should follow in a detailed paragraph or paragraphs, providing point-wise analysis – discussing evidence pros and cons, applying precedents (e.g., *Sudheesh U. v. RDO*, 2023 (2) KHC 505; *Muraleedharan Nair R. v. RDO*, 2023 (4) KHC 524), explaining why the LLMC recommendation is accepted or rejected, and demonstrating application of mind (e.g., "KSREC shows fallow since 2008, not paddy; adjacent conversions confirm unsuitability"). These reasons must be proper, cogent, and based on evidence. Conclude with a paragraph on the final decision, including the operative order (allow/reject), timelines, remedies (e.g., data bank update), and penalties if applicable. Finally, end with a paragraph on communication, specifying the mode of service and appeal rights (30 days under Rules).
42. Use clear, precise language; avoid vague phrases like "as per report."
43. Reference the judgement's precedents (e.g., no reliance on post-2008 potential for cultivation, para 11-15).
44. **Judgement Emphasis:** The findings/reasoning section is pivotal – it must show "reasons are heartbeat of every order" (*Basudev Dutta*, para 21).
45. Non-speaking orders invite quashing and costs (para 23).
**Step 5: Internal Review, Signing, and Issuance (Within 7 Days of Drafting)**
46. Review draft for completeness, reasoning, and compliance with the mandated format.
47. Consult legal cell if needed, but retain personal ownership – no delegation.
48. Sign personally after satisfying independent assessment.
49. Issue within 3 days via registered post/email, with copies to District Collector and data bank custodian.
50. **Judgement Emphasis:** Signing unscrutinized drafts by subordinates is "dereliction of duty" (para 19-20); seek extensions for elections/other duties, don't flout timelines.
**Step 6: Post-Order Compliance, Monitoring, and Training**
51. Update data bank immediately if allowed; monitor implementation (e.g., via follow-up reports).
52. Maintain a monthly log of Form-5 disposals (type, disposal time, speaking order compliance).
53. Report quarterly to Revenue Secretary (via District Collector), including quashed orders and reasons.
54. Attend compulsory training by Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA) on speaking orders and Act 2008 (to be scheduled within 3 months).
55. **Judgement Emphasis:** If challenged, file compliance affidavits referencing this circular and *Vinumon* (para 23(4)).
56. Systemic repetition erodes public trust (para 20).
# # # # Consequences of Non-Compliance
57. **Judicial:** Orders quashed, personal costs (Rs. 10,000+), contempt proceedings (para 18, 23).
58. **Administrative:** Referral to Disciplinary Authority (para 23(5)); suspension of powers; Vigilance inquiry.
59. **Personal:** No exoneration for "busyness" – officers are "senior... not laymen" (para 5, 20).
60. All RDOs shall submit a compliance undertaking (acknowledging receipt and commitment) within 7 days.
61. A copy of the *Vinumon* judgement is enclosed.
62. The Chief Secretary has been informed for state-wide circulation.
63. Let this serve as a clarion call: Pass reasoned orders to uphold justice, or face accountability.
**Sd/-**
Principal Secretary (Revenue)
Revenue Department
**Enclosure:** Certified copy of *Vinumon C. v. The District Collector & Ors.* (W.P.(C) No. 984 of 2025).
**Copy to:**
1. All District Collectors – For strict enforcement and follow-up.
2. Chief Secretary – For records and wider dissemination.
3. Law Department – For perusal.
4. All Principal Agricultural Officers/Tahsildars – For report submission timelines.
5. File/Stock File.
