Judicial review ensures administrative actions comply with legal standards, reinforcing principles upheld in prior rulings.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a Writ of certiorari or other appropriate Writ, Order, or direction quashing Exhibit P9 rejection order.

ii. Issue any appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring that the property of the petitioner shall not be included as “Nanja” or “paddy land” in the databank register.

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate Writ, Order, or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner in the light of the dictum of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

iv. To dispense with the production of the English translation of vernacular documents;

v. Issue such other writ, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner filed a Form-5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 and the same was originally rejected as per Ext.P6 order. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court, by filing WP(C) No.34045/2024. This Court set aside Ext.P6 order and directed to reconsider the matter as per Ext.P7 judgment. Thereafter Ext.P9 order is passed. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. This Court perused Ext.P6 order, which is the first order passed in the Form-5 application, and thereafter Ext.P7 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P7:

“8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appeals to me that the petitioner seeks for conversion of 2.16 Ares of land for the purpose of a residential building, for which, the Agricultural Officer forwarded a favourable report stating that the property involved in question is not in the nature of paddy land and it is not at all a cultivable land. However, the property appears in the data bank as 'paddy land', but the same is not a paddy land. On the boundaries of the said property, it appears that some residential buildings as well as some other plantations and some coconut trees are also found as part of the property, which is aged more than 20 years. However, on a further direction from the Revenue Divisional Officer while considering Form – 5 application, the Agricultural Officer changed the view observed in Ext.P5 and further reported that the property appears to be converted after 2008.

9. On going by the facts involved, I am not convinced that Ext.P6 is a judicious decision taken by the 1st respondent. Accordingly, I prefer to set aside Ext.P6 and direct to reconsider the same. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, now the Authority has changed thereby the Deputy Collector (RR), Malappuram is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 application after obtaining report from the Agricultural Officer in this regard. The 3rd respondent - Agricultural Officer shall obtain a report from the KSREC in that regard. He shall direct the petitioner to remit the necessary fees in that regard and after obtaining such report, the Agricultural Officer shall forward a report to the Deputy Collector (RR), Malappuram in this regard and on receiving such report, the Deputy Collector (RR) shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 application within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report from KSREC. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.”

5. Thereafter Ext.P9 order is passed. I am dissatisfied with the manner in which Ext.P9 order is passed by the authorised offic