The Court emphasizes the requirement for independent evaluation by authorities for land classification under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 2^nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P2 application (Form 5) submitted under Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 ('Rules' in short).

2. The petitioners are the owners in possession of 6.68 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.341/1E3 of Ramanattukara Village, Kozhikode District, covered by Ext.P1 basic tax receipt. The petitioners’ property is a dry land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the same as ‘Nanja’ and included it in the data bank. In order to exclude the property from the data bank, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P2 application. However, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, the 2^nd respondent has perfunctorily rejected the application, by solely relying on the report of the 4^th respondent. Ext.P4 is erroneous and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

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

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that, as per the classification of the land in the Malabar region, ‘Nanja’ land is wetland.

5. The petitioners’ specific case is that, their property is a dry land. However, the respondents have erroneously classified the same as ‘Nanja’ and included it in the data bank. Even though they have filed Ext.P2 application to exclude the property from the data bank, the same has been rejected by the impugned Ext.P4 order.

6. 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 ) andJoy K.K v. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam and others ( 2021 (1) KLT 433 )).

7. Ext.P4 order substantiates that the 2^nd respondent has not directly inspected the property or called for satellite images as envisaged under the Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. He has also not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the petitioners’ property as on the crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008, or whether the removal of the petitioners’ property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation in the locality. Instead, by solely relying on the report of the 4^th respondent, the 2^nd respondent has passed the impugned Ext.P4 order. Thus, I am satisfied that, Ext.P4 order has been passed without any application of the mind and the same is liable to be quashed. Hence, I direct 2^nd respondent 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.P4 order is quashed.

(ii). The 2^nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 application, in accordance with law. It would be up to the authorised officer to either directly inspect the property or call for satellite images as per the procedure provided under Rule 4(4f) at the expense of the petitioner.

(iii) If the authorised officer calls for the satellite images, he shall consider Ext.P2 application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of the receipt of the satellite images. However, if he directly inspects the property, he shall dispose of the application within two months from the