The authorized officer must personally inspect properties or use satellite imagery to make independent findings regarding land classification under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, ensuring adherence to statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.DIAS, J.

The petitioner is the owner in possession of 103 Ares and 98 Sq.Metres of land comprised in Re-Survey Nos. 158/2-2, 158/3, 158/1-1, 158/4, 158/2-1-2, 159/6, 159/7, 158/1-2, 158/5-3, 158/7-2 and 158/8-3 in Block No.21 of Vengola Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk, covered under Exts.P1 to P1(e) land tax receipts. The properties are converted lands and are unsuitable for paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have erroneously classified the properties as 'paddy land' and included it in the data bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and the Rules framed thereunder (‘Act’ and ‘Rules', for brevity). To exclude the properties from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Exts.P20 to P25 applications in Form 5, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However, by Exts.P27 to 32 orders, the authorised officer has summarily rejected the applications without either conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008 - the date the Act came into force. The impugned orders, therefore, are arbitrary and unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. The petitioner’s principal contention is that the applied properties are not cultivable paddy field but are converted plot. Nonetheless, the properties have been incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the Form 5 applications, the authorised officer has rejected the same without proper consideration or application of mind.

4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of this Court - including the decisions 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 [2021 (1) KLT 433] - that the authorised officer is obliged to assess the nature, lie and character of the land and its suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the decisive criteria to determine whether the properties are to be excluded from the data bank.

5. A reading of Exts.P27 to P32 orders reveal that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. There is no indication in the order that the authorised officer has personally inspected the properties or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the authorised officer has merely acted upon the reports of the Agricultural Officer without rendering any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no finding whether the exclusion of the properties would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light of the above findings, I hold that the impugned orders were passed in contravention of the statutory mandate and the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the impugned orders are vitiated due to errors of law and non- application of mind, and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to reconsider the Form 5 applications as per the procedure prescribed under the law.In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the writ petition in the following manner:

(i) Exts.P27 to P32 orders are quashed.

(ii) The 2^nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider the Form 5 applications, in accordance with the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the properties or calling for the satellite pictures as provided under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the pet