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