The authorized officer must consider suitability for paddy cultivation and binding legal precedents when determining land classification, ensuring compliance with judicial directives during inspections.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.DIAS, J.

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 0.1983 hectares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.606 of Vadama Village, Chalakkudy Taluk, covered under Ext.P2 land tax receipt. The property is a dry land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as paddy land and included it in the data bank. To exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 application under Rule 4 (6) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 ('Act and Rules', for brevity), before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (6^th respondent). By Ext.P5 judgment, this Court had directed the 6^th respondent to consider the application, expeditiously. Ext.P7 report issued by the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environmental Centre (KSREC) explicitly reveals that the property is a fallow land and there is a water body towards the western, eastern and south-east part in the data bank of 2007. By Exts.P8, P9, P10 and P12 decisions of the 6^th respondent, the properties adjacent to the petitioner’s property and comprised in the same survey number, were excluded from the data bank finding them unsuitable for paddy cultivation. However, by Ext.P11 decision, the 6^th has respondent declined to exclude the petitioner’s property from the data bank. Challenging Ext.P11 decision, the petitioner preferred W.P(C)No.29366/2023 before this Court. By Ext.P14 judgment, Ext.P11 decision was quashed and the 6^th respondent was directed to reconsider the matter in light of Ext.P7 KSREC report and after conducting a site inspection. Consequent to Ext.P14 judgment, the 6^th respondent conducted a site inspection, and by Ext.P15 order again rejected the petitioner’s application. The petitioner again assailed the order before this Court. By Ext.P16 judgment, this Court quashed Ext.P15 order and directed the 6^th respondent to forward the application to the 2^nd respondent/authorised officer, treating the application as one filed in Form 5 under 4(4d) of the Rules. Notwithstanding the specific directions in Ext.P16 judgment, the authorised officer has only partly allowed the Form 5 application by the impugned Ext.P17 order. As per Ext.P17 order, the authorised officer has recommended the exclusion of .0413 hectares of land from Re-survey No.606, but has directed 0.1261 hectares of land to be retained in the data bank for the reason that the extent of land is water-logged and there is an irrigation canal of the Mala Grama Panchayat passing adjacent to the property. Ext.P17 order is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

2. In the statement filed by the 2^nd respondent, it is inter alia, contended that, in compliance with the directions in Ext.P15 judgment, the office of the 2^nd respondent conducted an inspection on 4.9.2024, where it was revealed that the applied property is divided into two parts, by a road i.e., 4.13 Ares and 12.61 Ares. The extent having 4.13 Ares is adjacent to the road on one side and the other three sides are surrounded by filled land. No paddy filed or wetlands are found near the said property. Additionally, a building is constructed in the said portion of land before 2008. However, in respect of 12.61 Ares, the land is lying lower than the road level and resembles a swamp. A wide canal (Mala Canal) runs along the south-east side, and water from the canal seeps into the area, creating swamp like conditions. The land is inaccessible due to the stagnant water and water channels traversing through it. The land appears to act as a catchment area for the Mala Canal. The above findings stand corroborated by Ext.P7 KSREC report. It was in the above circumstances that Ext.P17 order was pass