Failure to comply with statutory assessment criteria resulted in voiding an administrative decision.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to cancel Exhibit P9 order and pass such order converting the nature of land in Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2 from Nancha to dry land;

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to pass orders of conversion of the property contained in Exhibits P1 and P2 having an total extent of 10.10 Ares of land in Survey No:76/32 and 76/33 in Cheruvannur Village in Kozhikode Taluk in Kozhikode District from Nancha to dry land ;

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 5th respondent to change the nature of land to dry land in the land tax receipts issued in future;

d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action in Exhibit P8 in a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

e) Kindly dispense with producing English translation of documents in vernacular language;

f) Pass such other orders as this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the

3^rd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by him under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioner is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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. Even though, 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 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.P9 order is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent/authorised o reconsider Ext.P8 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 petitioner, 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 d