The authorized officer must fully assess land characteristics for conservation rules compliance.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"i) issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash Exhibit P7 order of rejection issued by the first respondent after calling for the records leading to the issuance of the same.

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to delete an extent of 4.15 Ares of property in Resurvey No. 242/6, Block No. 23 of Navayikulam Village, Varkala Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District from Exhibit P3 data bank.

iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in Exhibit P4 application submitted in Form No. 5 for correction of the mistake in the data bank submitted by the petitioner afresh in view of the relevant provisions and government orders.

iv) declare that an extent of extent of 4.15 Ares of property in Resurvey No. 242/6, Block No. 23 of Navayikulam Village, Varkala Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District 5 is not a land to be included in the data bank.

v) To dispense with the production of the English translation of Exhibits which are in vernacular language; and vi) grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 1^st respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by the petitioner 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 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.P7 order is set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 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 date of production of a copy of