JUDGMENT :

Petitioner is the owner of 10.11 Ares of land in Resurvey No.258/36 of Block No.44 of Vadakkenchery 1 Village, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad District. Petitioner’s wife owns 6.7 Ares of adjacent land in Re-survey No. 258/43, (258/5) of Block No.44 of Vadakkenchery I Village, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad District. Both properties are lying adjacent to each other. Petitioner’s application under Form 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short ‘the Act’) was repeatedly rejected by the 2nd respondent. Each time, this Court interfered with the order of rejection and directed a fresh consideration. Finally, by order dated 30.6.2023, the Revenue Divisional Officer, after referring to the report of the data obtained from the KSREC, once again rejected the application, after observing that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation.

2. Sri. Prabhu K.N, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the findings in Ext.P14 order of the RDO are perverse, since the materials available before the 2nd respondent cannot lead to such a conclusion, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. Smt. Devishri R., the learned Government Pleader, on the other hand pointed out that the findings of fact entered into by the Statutory Authorities, ought not to be interfered with, unless the findings are perverse. According to the learned Government Pleader, the conclusion has been arrived at based on the records available, and therefore, no reasons exist to interfere with such findings.

4. On a consideration of the rival contentions, this Court notices that the impugned order itself shows that the petitioner’s property is landlocked. On the southern, northern, eastern, and western sides of the property, as per the data from KSREC, the RDO himself observes that the land is surrounded by roads pathways and houses. Despite the above data, the Agricultural Officer reported that the property is not seen to be converted. Based upon the said report, and a further site inspection carried out by the RDO, he has concluded that the property is suitable for paddy cultivation.

5. In the report of the LLMC, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P13, it is mentioned that on the northern boundary of the subject property is a 12 feet pathway, on the southern and western there is a Panchayat road , and on the eastern side, is a house, which clearly indicates that the property is landlocked. Of course, it is noticed that further to the western side of the Panchayat road, paddy cultivation is going on.

6. Taking note of the above findings, as revealed from the records available before the RDO and from Ext.P14 order, it fails all comprehension as to how the Authority could arrive at the conclusion that paddy cultivation is possible on the subject property. The property is undoubtedly landlocked by roads on three sides and a house on the other side. Even going by the LLMC report, it is impossible to arrive at a conclusion that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation. The very purpose of conferring power upon the RDO is to arrive at a decision after identifying the ground realities.

7. A property which is landlocked by permanent constructions like roads and houses cannot be put to paddy cultivation. Hence, I find that the conclusions arrived at by the RDO in Ext.P14 are perverse and are liable to be set aside. Since petitioner’s land is landlocked, I hold that the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation.

8. In view of the above findings, I set aside Ext.P14 and direct the 2nd respondent to issue fresh orders allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Form 5 of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is allowed as above.