The definition of paddy land requires proof of cultivation or suitability for cultivation, not merely classification as fallow land.

JUDGMENT

These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. The petitioner filed a form -5 application before the authorised officer for deleting his two items of property from the data bank. Originally, that application was dismissed. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court. By a detailed judgment, this Court set aside those orders as evident by Ext.P8 produced in these writ petitions. Now, as per Ext.P9 produced in these writ petitions, the form-5 application is again rejected. Aggrieved by the same, these writ petitions are filed.

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

4. This Court perused Ext.P9 order produced in these writ petitions and also Exts.P8 judgment in these cases. I am forced to say that the impugned order passed by the authorised officer is nothing, but flouting the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P8 judgment produced in WP (C) No.25426/2025, which is the judgment dated 07.03.2025 in WP(C) No. 28066/2024:

5. “First of all, it is to be noted that, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P7 does not contain an independent assessment of the 2^nd respondent and instead, the report of the Agriculture Officer as such, has been accepted. As far as the report of the Agriculture Officer is concerned, the same can only be treated as one of the materials for deciding the issue i.e., the nature of the property, which is the subject matter of the case. In other words, the enquiry contemplated for considering the application in Form-5 is not confined to the acceptance of the report of the Agricultural Officer and the other materials shall also to be taken into account.

6. Apart from the above, from Ext.P7 order, it is discernible that even as per the report of the Agricultural office, the property is described as a fallow land. For arriving at the said conclusion, the contents of Ext.P5 KSRSEC Report was also relied on. However, the conclusion of the 2nd respondent is to the effect that, since the property is fallow land, the same would come within the definition of Paddy land Act as per Sec.212 of the Act. The said finding is not correct and is against the definition of Paddy land Act as contemplated under Sec.212.

7. As per the said definition, the property must be that the one,where paddy cultivation at least once in a year or it is suitable for Paddy cultivation but un-cultivated and left fallow. Therefore, it is evident that merely because the property was described as ‘fallow land’, it cannot be treated as paddy land unless the same has the characteristics and features as referred to in Sec.2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act. This would mean that, either there must be cultivation of paddy once in a year or it must be suitable for paddy cultivation.

8. Here in this case, apart from the finding that it is a ‘fallow land’, no attempt has been made to find out whether any paddy cultivation being conducted once in a year or whether was it suitable for paddy cultivation. Therefore Ext.P7 order passed by the 2nd respondent is on a misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘Paddy land’ as defined under Sec.2(xii) of the Paddy Land Act. Therefore, reconsideration is absolutely necessary. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P7 with a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner, taking note of the observations made by this Court in this judgment and conducting an independent enquiry by,collecting all the inputs, by finding out whether the property was suitable for paddy cultivation as on the date enactment of the Paddy Land Act. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months from