The court emphasized the necessity for the authorized officer to follow statutory requirements in assessing land suitability under relevant conservation rules.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext. P7.

ii. To issue a declaration declaring that the property covered by Ext. P1 is a reclaimed land prior to Wet Land Act, 2008 iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing 2 nd respondent to reconsider Ext. P4 application a fresh.

iv. Issue any such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper considering the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

v. To Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

(SIC)

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by them 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 petitioner.

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 solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. There is no indication in the order that the authorised officer has directly inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. 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 she is ready to produce the office note of the inspection. I am of the considered opinion that the authorised officer cannot supplement something which is not there in Ext.P7 order. The details of the inspection note is not mentioned din Ext.P7.

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 2^nd respondent/authorised o 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 this judgment by the petitioner.

4. If the Authorised Officer is either dismissing or allowing the petit