The competent authority must independently assess land use for exclusion from conservation data banks as per statutory guidelines.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“a) call for the records leading to Exhibit P21 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction;

b) declare that the property covered by Ext. P19 is not paddy lands as defined under section 2(XII) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act and is liable to be excluded from the data bank and direct the 2nd respondent to remove the property from data bank;

c) to direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext P19 Form 5 application after considering all the relevant materials including KSREC report.

d) to dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

e) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P21 order passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting Ext.P19 Form–5 application submitted by the petitioners under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioners is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioners.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 and LLMC. 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.

The Government Pleader submitted that an inspection is conducted from the office of the authorised officer. But, admittedly the authorised officer has not directly inspected the property. The counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Exts.P1, P2 and P4 are not considered while considering the Form-5 application, in which it is stated that it is a “Converted Land” (Nikathu Bhoomi).

5. This Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v.

Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2023 (4) KHC 524 ], Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional O 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.P21 order is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent / authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P19 Form–5 application submitted by the petitioners, 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 petitioners, 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 di