The Authorized Officer must conduct a proper inspection or seek satellite imagery to assess the nature of paddy land before processing applications under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"a) Declare that when property of petitioner is shown as converted land in the data bank, there is no requirement for form V application for the purpose of considering form VI application In the light of judgment dated 28/1/22 reported in 2022 KHC 5586(in Anu Mathew V/s Revenue Divisional o b) Issue a writ certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P6, P7 and P8 and quash the same In the light of judgment dated 28.1.2022 reported in 2022 KHC 5586(in Anu Mathew V/s Revenue Divisional o c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to consider form V and VI application afresh and pass necessary orders within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble court.

d) Production of the English translation of vernacular documents may be dispensed with e) Grant such other release which deems fit and proper in the interest justice.

f) Grant the cost of this writ petition. ”

[SIC]

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

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 o reconsider Ext.P2 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