The competent authority must conduct an independent assessment of land suitability before denying the exclusion from the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

1. Petitioner, is the owner of 0.0920 Hectares of property in Re - Survey No.310/7-2 of Block No. 6 of Pallassana Village, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad District. Challenge is against Ext.P8 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad, whereby the petitioner's request to remove his land from the data bank was refused.

2. Petitioner alleges that his land was converted prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, the Act), and it is presently a 'dry land'. However, when the data bank was prepared under S.5(4)(i) of the Act, his land was wrongly included in it. Since the petitioner requires the land for other purposes, he submitted an application in Form - 5, invoking R.4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, the Rules).

3. By the impugned order, petitioner's application was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Petitioner alleges that the rejection was based solely on the report of the Agricultural Officer, without any site inspection and without any application of mind and is hence not a speaking order.

4. I have heard Sri.. Johnson Varikkappallil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.Amminikutty, the learned Senior Government Pleader and have also perused Ext.P8 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

5. Petitioner's application in Form 5 of the Rules was rejected relying on the Agricultural Officer's report dated 20.03.2023. The said report stated that petitioner's land need not be excluded from the data bank. Petitioner asserted that the surrounding areas are well - developed with multiple buildings and also that the impugned order had not even referred to the suitability of the land for paddy cultivation.

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 [2023 KHC OnLine 592] 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 irrigation facilities.

7. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the aforementioned specific aspects have not been adverted to, and instead, the application has been rejected solely on the basis of the report of the Agricultural Officer. The RDO could have atleast perused the scientific data for deciding the matter by directing the petitioner to apply for the same or by conducting a site visit. There is also no finding that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation and whether there are any paddy lands in the nearby areas. Since the order is bereft of material particulars and is not issued on any perceivable data, it cannot be said to be a reasoned order. Discernibly, there is no independent application of mind to the relevant circumstances, and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and a fresh consideration be made.

8. In the above circumstances, Ext.P8 is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the Form 5 applicatio