The competent authority must independently assess land character and suitability for paddy cultivation before making decisions regarding its exclusion from data bank.

JUDGMENT

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

"i) Call for the records pertains to Exhibit P6 order of

2nd respondent and quash the same by issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or writ or direction.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to allow Exhibit P2 application filed in Form 5 under the provisions of Act 28 of 2008 by the petitioner for removing the entry from the data bank;

iii) Declare that an extent of 23.74 Ares of property in Sy No. 288/6, Block No. 057 of Peringandoor Village, Thalapally Taluk, Thrissur District. is dry land.

iv) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

v) Dispense with production of filing of translation of vernacular documents.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by them under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioners is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioners.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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. Even though, 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.

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

1. Ext.P6 order is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised o reconsider Ext.P2 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 petitioners, 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 petitioners.

4. If the Authorised Officer is either dismissing or allowing the petition, a speaking order, as directed by this Court in the judgment dated 05.11.2025 in Vinumon v.

District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE AJ