The Court emphasized the obligation of authorities to assess the nature and character of land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 before making decisions.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Call for the records pertaining to Ext P6 order and set aside the same.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, appropriate order directing the 2^nd Respondent to re-consider, Exhibit P5,FORM 5 on the basis of scientific report and satellite images as to character and fitness of the property, within a time frame and allow the same.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, appropriate order directing the 4^th Respondent to avail the satellite images of the property ascertaining as to the character and fitness of the land as on 12.08.2008 as on and forward the same to the 2^nd Respondent.

iv) Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, appropriate order declaring that the rejection of Form 5 application which is not on the basis of character and fitness of the property is not legal.

v) Petitioner also prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the vernacular documents produced in the vernacular language.

vi) Such other relief’s that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant, in the interest of justice.

vii) Provide cost of the proceedings.”[SIC]

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application 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 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 inMuraleedharan 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.P6 order is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P5 Form – 5 application 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 perso