The competent authority must assess land nature and character for determining exclusion from the data bank under relevant laws.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) call for the records relating to exhibits P1 to P15 ii) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing Ext.P9;

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, declaring that the property covered in exhibits P1 to P14 are liable to be removed from the data bank and accordingly form 5 application made for the purpose by the petitioner, exhibit P8 may be allowed removing the land covered therein from the data bank as contemplated under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ;

iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondents with special reference to the respondent no.2 to complete the proceedings in furtherance to exhibit P10 to P14, at the earliest and in the time limits to be fixed by this Honourable Court;

v) dispense with the production of true English translation of the Malayalam documents produced herewith; and vi) pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and necessary in the interests of justice.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 order passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting Ext.P8 Form–5 application submitted by the petitioner 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(C) is allowed in the following manner:

1. Ext.P9 order is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent / authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P8 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 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 t