The court ruled that proper inspection and assessment are mandatory for classifying land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, ensuring decisions are made based on actual land characteristics.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.Dias, J.

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order and direct the 1^st respondent to reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner 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 4.25 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.80/3-3 of Vaniyamkulam 1 Village, Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad District covered by Ext.P1 possession certificate. The petitioner has constructed a residential building as evidenced by Ext.P2 property tax receipt. The petitioner's property is a garden land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the same as 'nanja (wetland)' and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner submitted a Form 5 application before the 1^st respondent. But, the 1^st respondent, by solely relying on the report of the Village Officer/4^th respondent, has perfunctorily rejected the Form 5 application without any application of mind. The 1^st respondent has not directly inspected the property or called for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules.

3. The 1^st respondent has filed a statement, inter-alia, stating that the Agricultural Officer after conducting a site inspection reported that the petitioner's property includes commercial establishment and residential plot. There is a road on one side and residential buildings on the other two sides. The rear portion of the petitioner's property falls within the paddy filed area. It was not converted prior to 2008. Therefore, the application cannot be allowed.

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

5. It is the petitioner's specific case that his property is a garden land. It is not suitable for paddy cultivation. There are buildings and commercial establishments on the sides of the petitioner's property, which by itself proves that the property is landlocked. The 1^st respondent without inspecting the property directly or called for the satellite images has rejected the application.

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. In Niyas v. The District Collector Palakkad [2023 KHC Online 9342], this Court has succinctly held that, if a property is land-locked by permanent constructions, roads and buildings, the same cannot be used for paddy cultivation.

8. The specific case of the respondents in their statement is that the petitioner's property is wetland. However, it is the Agricultural Officer, who has filed a report in the matter. If the property is a wetland going by Rule 4(4d) of the Rules, the competent authority is the Village Officer. Moreover, the 1^st respondent has not directly inspected the property or called for the satellite images. Therefore, I am satisfied and convinced that Ext.P5 order has been passed without any application of mind and the same is liable to be quashed, and the 1^st respondent be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles laid down in the aforecited decisions and the materi