The authority must independently assess land suitability when considering exclusion from the data bank under the Kerala Land Utilization Order.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P11 and to quash the same ii. Issue a declaration that the lands having an extent of 03.57 Ares in Re-survey No. 78/2-4 in Block No. 11 of Kureekkad Village in Kanayannoor Taluk is not a paddy land, in view of description in Exhibit P1,issuance of P4 and P5, entries in Exhibit P7 and the photographs produced as Exhibit P12..

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 4th respondent to pass orders removing the subject lands having an extent of 03.57 Ares in Re-survey No. 78/2-4 in Block No. 11 of Kureekkad Village, from the data bank.

iv. Dispense the petitioner from producing the English translation of the vernacular documents produced in the writ petition.

v. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner purchased an extent of 3.57 Ares (8.820 cents) of properties in Resurvey No.78/2-4 in Block No.11 of Kureekkad Village from the Cochin Shipyard Staff Co-operative House Construction Society, from out of 6 Acres developed by them is the submission. According to the petitioner, the said Society moved the 2^nd respondent under the Kerala Land Utilization Order (for short, KLU Order), which led to Exts.P4 and P5. According to the petitioner, the land is included in the data bank with remarks as “10 years”. Hence the petitioner submitted application in Form-5, which was rejected by 3™ respondent. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court. As per Ext.P10, this Court set aside Ext.P8. Ignoring the directions in Ext.P10 judgment, the 4^th respondent again dismissed the Form-5 application, as evident by Ext.P11. According to the petitioner, the land is not a paddy land in view of the entries in Ext.P1 tax receipt, Ext.P7 data bank, Exts.P4 and P5 orders under the KLU Order, Ext.P9 KSREC report and also in the light of Ext.P12 photographs. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on Ext.P13 commission report. Hence this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused Ext.P10 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P10 judgment:

“5. Petitioners’ application in Form 5 of the Rules was rejected relying on the Agricultural Officer’s report. The said report stated that petitioners land need not be excluded from the data bank. Petitioners rely upon the KSREC report produced as Ext.P7 and asserts that the surrounding areas are well-developed with buildings on them and also that the impugned order has not referred to the suitability for cultivation as a paddy land.

6. In the decision in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591] and in Muraleedharan Nair R. v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524] , this Court had observed that the RDO cannot merely follow the report of the Agricultural Officer or the LLMC without any independent assessment of the status of the land. This Court had also observed that while considering an application filed under Form 5, the Authority must consider whether the removal of the property from the data bank will affect paddy cultivation in the land and also whether it will affect the nearby paddy fields. Similarly, in the decision in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer Irinjalakuda [2023 (6) KHC 83] it has been observed that when the competent authority considers a Form-5 application, the predominant consideration should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from data bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible including the existence of ir