The court emphasized the necessity of independent inspection and adherence to legal principles in classifying land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26^th day of May, 2025

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 order and direct the 2^nd respondent to re-consider Ext. P4 application (Form 5) submitted 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 22.800 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 99/5, 99/5-1 and 99/5-2 of Nemom Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District covered by Ext. P1 sale deed. The petitioner’s property is a dry land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the property as ‘Nilam’ and included it in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('Act' for short) and the Rules framed thereunder. In order to remove the property from the data bank, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 application. However, the second respondent, solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, who has reported that the property is waterlogged and has water streams, has passed the impugned Ext. P5 order. The second respondent has not directly inspected the property of the petitioner or called for satellite images from the State Institute of the Central Science and Technology as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Hence, Ext. P5 is erroneous and liable to be quashed.

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

4. The petitioner’s specific case is that, her property is a dry land much prior to the commencement of the Act in 2008. There is no paddy cultivation. The respondents have erroneously classified the land as ‘Nilam’ and included it in the data bank. Therefore, the property is liable to be removed from the data bank.

5. In a plethora of judicial precedents, 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 inMuraleedharan 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 )).

6. Likewise inMather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others ( 2020 (2) KHC 94 ), a Division Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a property is lying fallow and gets water logged during the rainy season or otherwise, due to the low-lying nature of the property, it cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda , ( 2023 (6) KHC 83 ), holding that the prime consideration to retain a property in data bank is to ascertain whether paddy cultivation is possible in the land.

7. A reading of Ext.P5 order would substantiate that the second respondent has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature, character or lie of the petitioner’s property as on the crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of the petitioner’s property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. He has also not directly inspected the property or called for satellite images as envisaged under the rules. Therefore, I hold that there has been total non-application of the mind in passing Ext.P5 order. Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P5 order is liable to be quashed and the second respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

(i). Ext.P5 order is qua