The court emphasized the necessity of independent review by the authorized officer in land classification matters under pertinent environmental law.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P8 and quash the same.

ii) Declare that the property of the petitioner having a total extent of 7.68 Ares of property in Resurvey No. 34/3 in Block No. 261 of the 3rd respondent village is not paddy land but garden land and is exempted from the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 .

iii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the respondents to remove the property of the petitioner having a total extent of 7.68 Ares of property in Resurvey No. 34/3 in Block No. 261 of the 3rd respondent village from the data bank and classify the same as garden land in the revenue records.

iv) Dispense with the production of the English translation of Exhibits which are in vernacular language; and v) grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner filed a application in Form 5, as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The same was rejected as per Ext.P6 order by the authorised officer. The petitioner challenges the same before this Court by filing a writ petition, W.P.(C.) No.6669/2024.

This Court set aside Ext.P6 order, and directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made in the judgment. Now again the Form 5 application as evident by Ext.P8. Aggrieved by the same this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard.

4. This Court perused Ext.P8 order, which is impugned in this writ petition. In the first paragraph the details of the case are mentioned. Subsequently, the report of the Agricultural officer is extracted. After extracting the Agricultural officer’s report, the KSREC report is also extracted. Then, it is observed that there was an inspection from the officer of the authorised officer.

5. This Court directed the Government Pleader to get instructions whether the inspection is conducted by the authorised officer. The learned Government Pleader after getting instructions submitted that, the inspection is conducted by the junior Superintendent of the Office of the authorised officer. That means, the order is based on an inspection conducted by a junior Superintendent. The inspection is not conducted by the authorised officer. There is no independent consideration of the Form 5 application by the authorised officer. Moreover, as per the KSREC report, the property is shown as fallow land in 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 th