The authorized officer must assess land suitability for paddy cultivation before exclusion from the data bank, aligning with statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Issue of writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction calling the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P5 order and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

b) To declare that the petitioners’ property covered by Exhibit P2 comprised in Re.Sy.No.793/15-3 in Block No.5 of Thrikkakkara North Village is a converted dry land and therefore, direct the 2^nd respondent to remove the entry in the data bank as Nilam referring to the petitioners land.

c) To dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

d) To issue such other writ order or directions which are deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice ”[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. 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 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.P5 order is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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 Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275].

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS