Kerala High Court observed that “90% orders are passed without application of mind” as it came down heavily on revenue officials for issuing copy-paste orders while disposing of paddy land conversion applications, terming such mechanical actions a failure of administrative duty.
The Kerala High Court criticized Revenue Divisional Officers across the state for issuing uniform, non-specific orders without proper consideration when handling applications to change land classification from ‘paddy land.’
These applications, commonly referred to as Form 5 applications, are submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, which allows landowners to request the removal of their properties from the state’s paddy land database.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan highlighted that nearly 90% of the decisions made by the authorized officers in such cases were formulaic and lacked any thoughtful analysis.
The judge lamented,
“Nowadays, the routine duty of this Court is to set aside stereotypical orders passed by authorised officers … 90% of them are disposed of with the same set of sentences without application of mind by the authorised officers,”
The Court expressed concern that these officers may be relying on a standardized template for issuing orders.
It stated,
“This Court even apprehends that the authorised officers are passing orders based on a standard order drafted by them, which is circulated among themselves!”
The Court asserted that such behavior would not be tolerated, emphasizing that authorized officers must avoid issuing vague orders.
The Court has repeatedly instructed these officers to provide proper, reasoned orders, yet to little effect. It compared the officers’ conduct to that of an unmanageable child.
The Court remarked,
“In Malayalam, there is a story of a nephew and his uncle. The uncle used to beat the nephew to see that he would become a good boy. But there was no change in him. At last, the nephew told the uncle like this: ‘എന്നെ തല്ലേണ്ടമ്മാവാ, ഞാൻ നന്നാവില്ല ‘ (Don’t beat me uncle, I will never change). But this court cannot take it in that manner as far as authorised officers are concerned,”
The Court warned that it would take measures against officials who continue with such an attitude, stating,
“This Court cannot ignore this type of attitude from authorised officers, and this Court knows how to deal with such attitudes from them. Authorised officers are not laymen, but they are senior officers of the state service.”
It also stated that any officer found to be carelessly handing down unsubstantiated orders on Form 5 applications would face monetary penalties.
The ruling from November 5 specified,
“The authorised officers should not be allowed to issue such cryptic orders in the future … In future, if an order passed in a Form-5 application is not a speaking order, this Court will be forced to direct the Officer concerned to pay costs to the litigant for unnecessarily approaching this Court again and again,”
This ruling came in response to a case involving a petitioner named Vinumon, who had submitted a Form 5 application requesting the removal of his land from the state’s paddy land database. Vinumon argued that his property had been incorrectly classified as paddy land by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC).
After his Form 5 application was rejected, he appealed to the High Court for resolution in 2024. The Court ordered that his application be reconsidered, but the authorized officer, Sreejith S, Deputy Collector (General) in Kottayam, rejected the request with an order largely mirroring the previous one.
Frustrated, the petitioner approached the High Court again. The Court noted that officers often uncritically accepted reports from Agricultural or Village Officers instead of conducting independent assessments regarding land classification.
The explanation from the concerned officer, Sreejith, regarding why he rejected the application was deemed unsatisfactory. He stated in an affidavit that he had signed an order that was pre-drafted by a junior superintendent due to a lack of time amid post-election duties and the Court’s directive for timely reconsideration.
The Court remarked that the officer could have requested an extension instead of mindlessly signing subordinates’ documents. Consequently, it ordered the officer to pay Rs.10,000 to the petitioner for his negligence.
Directing that the judgment be circulated among all authorized officers, Justice Kunhikrishnan stated,
“This is only to strengthen the trust of litigants in the system. No citizen should knock on the doors of the court because of this type of careless attitude from the public servant,”
The Court granted the petition, setting aside the challenged order, and instructed the relevant officer to reevaluate the petitioner’s Form 5 application within two weeks.
Additionally, it referred the matter to the relevant Disciplinary Authority to investigate any potential neglect of duty by the officer involved.
Advocate VA Johnson (Varikkappallil) represented the petitioner, while Government Pleader S. Renjith appeared for the State.
Case Title: Vinumon vs The District Collector & ors