The classification of land as 'paddy or wetland' must be based on independent assessment and actual conditions, not solely on subordinate reports or revenue records.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. DIAS, J.

1. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 5.62 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos. 886/1A-56 and 886/1A-57 in Block No.203 in Kannur -I Village, Kannur Taluk. Exts.P1 to P3 sale deeds evidence the petitioner’s title to the property. Ext.P4 parent deed dated 24.11.1948, proves that the applied property is categorised as ‘Nilam Nikathiya Parambu’ from 1948 onwards. The petitioner has effected mutation of the property in his name. Notwithstanding the above documents, the respondents had erroneously classified the petitioner’s property as ‘Nanja’ in the revenue records and ‘wetland’ in the Ext.P6 notified data bank. The property, though so described in the data bank, is situated in the heart of Kannur Town, bounded by commercial buildings to the north, the Kannur Bus Stand to the east, a public road to the south, and a residential building to the west. The property was converted well before the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'Act and Rules'). The petitioner, therefore, submitted Ext.P7 application in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules, to exclude the property from the data bank. However, based on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the authorised officer rejected Ext.P7 application, by Ext.P8 order. Assailing Ext.P8 order, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.1617/2025 before this Court. By Ext.P9 judgment, this Court quashed Ext.P8 order and directed the authorised officer to reconsider Ext.P7 application, after calling for a report from the Village Officer, as the property is classified as ‘wetland’ in the data bank, and after directly inspecting the property. Notwithstanding the specific directions in Ext.P9 judgment, the authorised officer had again called for Ext.P11 reports from the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer, and again rejected Ext.P7 application by the impugned Ext.P10 order. Even though the authorised officer has stated that he had personally inspected the property, he has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008, the date on which the Act came into force, or whether the exclusion of the property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality. It is pertinent to note that the nature of the adjacent properties was changed in the revenue records as per Exts.P12, P13, and P20 orders. Exts.P15 and P16 photographs show the true character and nature of the petitioner’s property. Ext.P10 order is arbitrary and unsustainable in law, and is liable to be quashed.

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, it is inter alia contended that, pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment, the authorised officer had called for reports from the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer. The applied property is classified as ‘paddy land’ in the data bank. In such cases, the report of the Agricultural Officer is to be considered; therefore, the authorised officer did not accept the report of the Village Officer. The Agricultural Officer has reported that the land is currently marshy and has not been converted before 2008. Additionally, in the site inspection, a natural stream was found passing through the area. If the property is removed from the data bank, it may cause an environmental impact. The authorised officer also referred to the satellite images. There is no illegality in Ext.P10 order. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

3. I have heard, Sri. Soyuz. P.K., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.