The authorized officer must independently assess land nature before rendering decisions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To issue writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibits P5, P7, P7(a) and P7 (b) and set aside P5, P7, P7(a) and P7 (b).

ii. To issue a writ of Mandamus order or direction to respondents 2 to 5 and to reconsider form 5 applications and decide the nature of the property on the basis of reports from KSRESC, actual position of the land and on the basis of Exhibit P 8 grant fresh orders on the applications marked as Exhibit P6, P6 (a) and Exhibit P6( b) and thus convert the nature of the properties of petitioners as purayidom from nilam in BTR records and other records and in the draft data bank.

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or order directing the 2^nd respondent to change the category of land owned and possessed by the petitioners, as requested in Exhibit P6, P6 (a) and P6 (b), as Purayidam in the BTR Records and issue necessary orders regarding the same to the respondents 2 to 5 remove the entry from the draft data bank in Re Sy No 17/1-2 I, Re Sy No 17/2 and Re Sy No 17/3 owned by the petitioners.

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

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the Form–5 applications submitted by the petitioners 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 orders. I am of the considered opinion that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The impugned orders were passed by the authorised officer solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. There is no indication in the orders 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.P7, P7(a) and P7(b) orders are set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider the Form – 5 applications submitted by the petitioners 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 applications 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 pers