A non-speaking order violates principles of fair assessment under land conservation laws.

JUDGMENT

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

" i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction and quash Ext.P9, Order No.RDOPKD/891/2024-J2 dated 23.05.2024 issued by 2^nd Respondent.

ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction and direct the 2^nd respondent to delete the petitioner’s property comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.53/19,21 in Block No.29 of Kavassery-I Village, Alathur Taluk in Palakkad District having an extent of 4.6849 Hectare from Ext.P4, Data Bank."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner’s property, though classified as ‘Nilam’, yet the same remained as “barren land” which is not suitable for any paddy cultivation, is the submission. The petitioner filed a Form-5 application, and the same was dismissed originally as per Ext.P7. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court, and the same was set aside by this Court as per Ext.P8 judgment. Now, the Form-5 application is again rejected as per Ext.P9. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition (C) is filed.

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

4. This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. Originally, the Form-5 application was rejected as per Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is not a speaking order, and that is why this Court interfered with the same as per Ext.P8 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the Ext.P8 judgment.

4. This Court perused Ext.P7 order. Ext.P7 is not a speaking order. Except relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer, the contention of the petitioner is not adverted while passing Eixt.P7 order. in Muraleedbaran Nalr v. Revenue Divisional Offcer [2023 (4) KLT 270] , this Court observed that, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that Local Level Monitoring Committee has decided not to remove the land from the Data Bank.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, being the competent authority, has to independently assess the status of the land and come to a conclusion that, removal of the land from the Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question and nearby paddy lands or that, it will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands in the area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable.

6. in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (5) KLT 432] , this Court observed that the predominant factor for consideration while considering Form 5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from the Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible or feasible.

7. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is passed in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is also submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not applied his mind and simply accepted the report. It is also submitted that, it is mandatory on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer to call for a report from the KSREC to ascertain the status of the land as on 12.08.2008 when the Act came into force. It is submitted that the status of the land as on 12.08.2008 can be ascertained only through a scientific process.

8. After going through the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that, there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. The impugned order is not a speaking order. The contentions of the petitioner is not adverted by the 2^nd respondent while passing the order. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

a) Ext.P7orderissetaside.

b) The 2^nd