The court emphasized the necessity to comply with statutory assessment criteria for land classification under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following orders:

i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P7 dated 6.2.2025 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari finding that it is illegal.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 6th respondent to reconsider and pass orders on Form 5 application on the basis of Ext.P5 & P6 report of Agricultural Officer and KSREC after conducting a site inspection and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a time limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

iii) Declare that the property of the petitioner lying in in 16.19 Ares of property comprised in Re.Sy 192/30, in block No.38 in Marutharoad Village in Palakkad Taluk in Palakkad District is not a paddy land and is liable to be excluded from the data bank.

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 petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2^nd 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 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. Even though a site inspection is conducted, details of site inspection are not mentioned in the order.

5. This Court in Muraleedharan 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.P7 order is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 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 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 the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.

4. If the authorised officer is either dismissing or allowing the petition, a speaking order as directed by this court in Vinumon v. D