The classification of land as 'wetland' or 'paddy land' depends on specific statutory definitions under Act, 2008, and prior judgments.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate Writ or order calling for the records leading to Ext P12 and P13 and quash it.

ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ or order directing the 2nd respondent Tahasildar (LR) to reassess the property by treating the same as purayidam/dry land and issue appropriate orders to change the classification in Basic Tax Register and other revenue records as purayidam/dry land.

iii. to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in vernacular language.

iv. to grant such other relief, which are deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(SIC)

2. Petitioners filed Form-5 applications in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, to delete the properties of the petitioners from the data bank and the same was originally rejected as per Exts.P8 and P9 orders. The petitioners challenged the same before this Court, by filing WP(C) No.10288/2024. This Court set aside those orders and directed to reconsider the Form-5 applications, as per Ext.P11 judgment. Thereafter Exts.P12 and P13 orders are passed, again rejecting the applications. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. This Court perused impugned orders. In paragraphs

1 to 3, the statement of facts are narrated. In paragraph 4 of the impugned orders, the KSREC report is extracted. Thereafter the Form-5 applications are rejected. The observations and finding in the KSREC report extracted in Ext.P12 itself would show that the plots were observed under fallow land in the data bank of 2008. This Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ekm and Others [2020 (2) KHC 94] observed like this:

“22. Going by the definition of wetland, we are of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the characteristic features and requirement as is provided under Act, 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well as report of KSREC, the nodal agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is also significant to note that from the definition of wetland under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSREC is not disputed by the Residents Association. Merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. That apart on a query made by us, counsel on either side submitted that, the properties in question have access from the National Highway from Kochi to Coimbatore and by the side of Kochi Metro line, which are also admittedly developed areas with large number of residential, commercial and multi utility buildings apart from various educational and religious institutions, thus having no scope for any paddy cultivation.”

5. This Court in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275] considered this issue in detail and observed the manner in which a Form-5 application is to be considered. Therefore Exts.P12 and P13 are to be set aside and once again the Form-5 applications are to be reconsidered by the authorised officer.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Exts.P12 and P13 are set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised o to reconsider and pass appropriate orders in the Form-5 applications submitted by the petitioners in the light of the dictum la