Authority must independently assess land suitability for conservation purposes, following statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P7 and quash the same by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction.

b) Declare that the property of the petitioner covered by Exhibit P1 is liable to be excluded from the data bank of Mylon Grama Panchayat prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to issue the necessary notifications to remove Exhibit P1 property from the data bank within a time limit to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court Or in the alternative Issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ order or direction compelling the 3rd respondent to consider Exhibit P5 Form 5 application afresh in accordance with law within a time limit stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.

c) Dispense with the filing of English Translation of documents in vernacular language;

d) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit while considering the peculiar circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by the petitioner 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 in Muraleedharan 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 3^rd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P5 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