The authority must independently assess land classification, ensuring decisions are based on proper evaluation criteria and not solely on subordinate reports.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. Dias, J.

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P3 application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 ('Rules' in short).

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 18.21 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.128/8-1 of the Veliyannur Village in Kottayam District, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner’s property is a garden land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the land as paddy land and included it in the data bank. In the said background, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application, to remove her property from the data bank. The 2^nd respondent, solely relying on the reports of the additional 4^th respondent and the Village Officer, has held that the petitioner's property cannot be removed from the data bank. In fact, the 2^nd respondent has not independently assessed the nature, lie, and character of the petitioner's property as on 12.8.2008, the date the Act came into force. The 2^nd respondent ought to have also called for a report from the KSREC to have assessed the character of the property as contemplated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. The entire decision making process leading to Ext.P4 order is erroneous and liable to be quashed. Hence, the writ petition.

3. The 1st respondent has filed a statement, inter alia, stating that as per the report of the additional 4^th respondent, the petitioner’s property is low lying paddy land and is water logged. Therefore, the petitioner's property cannot be removed from the data bank. Moreover, the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) by report dated 11.06.2024 has recommended not to remove the land from the data bank. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

5. The petitioner's specific case is that, her property is a garden land and is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The 2^nd respondent has not independently evaluated the nature, lie and character of the petitioner's property as on 2008. It was up to the 2^nd respondent to have called for a report from the KSREC and ascertained the character of the property as on 2008.

6. It is well settled by this Court in a plethora of precedents that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions of this Court in Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386] and Joy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others [2021 (1) KLT 433].

7. Ext.P4 order reveals that the 2^nd respondent had called for reports from the Village Officer and the additional 4^th respondent. Going by the Scheme of the Act, it is only the additional 4^th respondent, who is the competent officer, to file a report in an application under Form 5. Actually, the Agricultural Officer has only reported that the petitioner's property is a low lying paddy land and water logged. However, the 2^nd respondent has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the petitioner's property as on the crucial date i.e., 12.8.2008 or whether the removal of the petitioner's property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. The 2^nd respondent has also failed to call for a report from the KSREC, as contemplated under Rule 4 (4f) of the Rules, to ascertain the character of the petitioner's property.

8.In Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad [2023 (2) KLT 386], this Court has succinctly held that, just because a property is lying fallow, the land cannot be brought within the definition of paddy land. Instead, the Revenue Divisional Officer has