Land must be suitable for paddy cultivation to be classified as paddy land; mere fallow status is insufficient.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 order whereby the application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5 under Rule 4 (4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Rules 2008 was rejected.

2. Petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of 0.0481 hectares of land comprised in Old Survey No. 177/2, 7, resurvey block No. 3, resurvey No. 6/22 of Puthunagaram Village, Palakkad Taluk, Palakkad District. The petitioner submits that the property is a garden land situated in a residential area, surrounded by houses and road. Even though the property is garden land, it has been wrongly included as paddy land in the land data bank of Puthunagaram Grama Panchayat. Thereupon, the petitioner preferred an application in Form 5 seeking to delete the above property from the land data bank. The said application was rejected as per Ext P2 order for the reason that the property is lying fallow and there are paddy cultivation nearby and conversion will affect the flow of water and the environment. The petitioner submits that his property is a garden land which is in a residential area that has been converted long back, and these aspects were not properly considered while issuing Ext P2 order. Petitioner further submits that no site inspection was conducted or a report from the KSREC was obtained by the 1^st respondent before issuing Ext P2 order. Only for the reason that the property is left fallow and there are paddy lands nearby, the application submitted by the petitioner cannot be rejected.

3. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the 1^st respondent mainly contending that the Local Level Monitoring Committee(LLMC) visited the property of the petitioner and from the apparent appearance of the property it was found to be paddy land. The fact that the property is surrounded by other properties and a PWD road is admitted in the counter affidavit. But based on Ext. R1(a) report of the LLMC, the application was rejected.

4. I have considered the rival contentions. The question to be considered is whether the reason stated in Ext P2 for rejecting the application is legally sustainable. It is settled law that it is the character and fitness of the land, as available on 12.08.2008, i.e., date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 , (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 2008') that is relevant for inclusion or exclusion of the land in the data bank. (See the judgment inJoy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector , [2021 (1) KLT 433] andArthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, [2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222]. A perusal of Ext. P2 order would reveal that there is no consideration by the 1^st respondent as to whether the land in question was a paddy land when the Act 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation. The specific case of the petitioner is that no site inspection nor report from the KSREC was obtained before rejecting the application as per Ext P2. In Arthasasthra’s case (supra), this Court has held that if the Revenue Divisional Officer is not satisfied with the available materials, the said authority ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSREC. Therefore, the action of the 1^st respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner without ascertaining as to the character and fitness of the land as on 12.08.2008 and as to whether it was fit for paddy cultivation, without even conducting a site inspection or calling for a report from the KSREC, is absolutely arbitrary and unjust.

5. Another reason stated for rejecting the application is that the land is lying as fallow. Paddy land is defined in Section 2(xii) of the Act, 2008 as follows:

“2(xii). 'paddy land' means all types of la