The authorized officer must conduct a personal inspection or obtain satellite images to validly determine land use under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

JUDGMENT

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

"i. To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext P3 and P5 as unjust and illegal;

ii. To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing Exhibit P2 to the extent to which, the land of the petitioner is included as paddy land in the Data Bank prepared by the 4^th respondent;

iii. To declare the land of the petitioner is not a paddy land or wet land and therefore liable to be removed from the Data Bank Register;

iv. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 3 to 5 to remove the entries regarding the petitioner’s property from the Data Bank register and to publish an erratum notification in Kerala Gazette for the same;

v. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 3^rd respondent to reconsider the Form.5 application submitted by the petitioner for excluding the land of the petitioner from Data Bank, after conducting site inspection of the land along with verifying the KSRSEC Report, within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

vi. And to pass such other appropriate orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

vii. to dispense with the production of translation of vernacular documents;"

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by him 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. There is no indication in the order that the authorised officer has directly inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. 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 in Muraleedharan Nair R v.

Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2023 (4) KHC 524 ], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional O 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.

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

1. Exts.P3 & P5 orders are set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider the Form – 5 application submitted by the petitioner 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