Statutory authorities must independently assess compliance with paddy cultivation regulations before deciding on property exclusions from government data banks.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“1) call for records leading to Ext.P17, P18 and P19 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P17, P18 and P19.

2) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to allow Form 5 applications petitioners mentioned in Ext.P17, P18 and P19 respectively and direct removal of the respective properties of petitioners from the data bank.

3) issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.

4) award cost of this proceedings to the petitioners.

5) dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced as Exhibits in the writ petition.”[SIC]

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by Exts.P17 to P19 orders passed by the 1^st respondent rejecting the Form–5 applications 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 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 based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. Eventhough 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 in Muraleedharan Nair R v.

Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2023 (4) KHC 524 ], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional O Palakkad [ 2023 (2) KLT 386 ], andJoy 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 orders are 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 orders are to be set aside.

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

1. Exts.P17, P18 & P19 orders are set aside.

2. The 1^st 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 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 Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6) KLT 275 ], shall be passed.

Sd/-