The competent authority must independently assess land suitability for agriculture, adhering to statutory requirements under the relevant Rules.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

i) Call for the records pertaining to Ext.P6 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

ii) Declare that the petitioner property is converted before the year 2008 and direct the 1^st respondent to reconsider the Petitioner Ext.P4 Form 5 application and remove the entry of petitioner’s property from data Bank within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble court.

iii) Allow the writ petition with cost."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the

1^st respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioner is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioner.

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

4. This Court perused the impugned order. I am of the considered opinion that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The impugned order was passed by the authorised officer solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. Eventhough, KSREC report is available, the same is not properly considered by the authorised officer. There is no independent finding regarding the nature and character of the land as on the relevant date by the authorised officer. Moreover, the authorised officer has not considered whether the exclusion of the property would prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.

5. 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 [ 2021 (1) KLT 433 ], observed that the competent authority 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 property merits exclusion from the data bank. The impugned order is not in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court in the above judgments. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside.

6. It is true that in Ext.P6, it is stated that there is an inspection from the office of the Authorised Officer. But the details of the inspection are not narrated in order, except the reproduction of the report of the Agricultural Officer. Therefore, I think, the matter is to be reconsidered.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:

1. Ext.P6 order is set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent/authorised o to reconsider the Ext.P4 Form – 5 application in accordance with the law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner, if not already called for.

3. If satellite pictures are called for, the application shall be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the authorised officer opts to personally inspect the property, the application shall be considered and disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.

4. If the Authorised Officer is either dismissing or allowing the petition, a speaking order, as directed by this Court in Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6) KLT 275 ], shall be passed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SSG