The evaluation of land suitability for paddy cultivation must be independent and adhere to prescribed procedures, not solely rely on LLMC reports.

JUDGMENT :

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order and to direct the 2^nd respondent to reconsider 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 19.60 Ares of land comprised in Block No.15 and Re.Sy.No.174/6 of Kidangoor Village, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam District covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. The petitioner’s property is a garden land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as 'nilam' and included it in the data bank. In the said background, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 application to remove the property from the data bank. However, the 2^nd respondent, without independently evaluating the matter and by merely relying on the report of the respondents 4 and 5, has rejected the application by the impugned Ext.P5 order. There has been total non- application of mind in passing the said order. The 2^nd respondent has not inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures from the State Institute of Science and Technology as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Therefore, Ext.P5 order is liable to be quashed.

3. The 3^rd respondent has filed a statement, inter alia, stating that the respondents 4 and 5 have filed their reports, which prove that the property adjacent to the petitioner’s land is a paddy land. The petitioner’s property is low lying land, even though there are banana and arecanut plantations. Hence, the application was rejected.

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

5. The petitioner’s specific case is that, his property is a garden land. There are buildings in the said property. His property is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The 2^nd respondent, without inspecting the property in person or without getting satellite pictures as envisaged under the Rules, has perfunctorily rejected the application based on the reports of the respondents 4 and 5. In fact, the 5^th respondent has only relied on the report of the Local Level Monitoring Committee (in short, ‘LLMC’), which is untenable.

6. In a plethora of judicial pronouncements, this Court has held 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 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, 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. A reading of Ext.P5 order would substantiate that the 2nd respondent has arrived at the impugned findings solely on the basis of the observations of the LLMC.

8. In Rasheed C v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector (2025 KHC 1666), this Court has succinctly held that, a Form 5 application cannot be considered on the basis of the observations of the LLMC, since the said procedure is not contemplated under the Rules. The Rules only provide to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer or getting a scientific report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC).

9. Ext.P5 order substantiates that the 2^nd respondent has not independently evaluated the nature and character of the petitioner’s property as on the crucial date, i.e., on 12.08.2008 or ascertained whether the property is suitable for paddy cultivation. He has also not independently inspected the property or called for the satellite images as envisaged in the Rules. Therefore, I hold that the entire decision making process leading to Ext.P5 is vitiated and erroneous. Hence, I am convinced that Ext.P5 is liable to be quashed and the authorised officer be directed to reconsider the m