The classification of land as wetland must consider its suitability for paddy cultivation based on specific criteria.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order quashing Exhibit P5 as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order compelling the 2nd respondent to reconsider Exhibit P3 application, affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court;

(iii) issue such other writ, direction or order as is deemed just and necessary in the facts, features and circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner filed a Form-5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 and the same was rejected as per Ext.P4 order. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court by filing WP(C) No.9034/2025. This Court set aside the same and directed to reconsider the matter. Consequently, Ext.P5 order is passed. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

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

4. This Court perused Ext.P6 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the abovesaid judgment:

“5. The petitioner’s specific case is that, his property is a garden land and is not suitable for paddy cultivation. The respondents have erroneously classified the land as wetland and included it in the data bank. The second respondent has erroneously rejected Ext. P3 application.

6. In a plethora of judicial precedents, this Court has held that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions of 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 and others ( 2021 (1) KLT 433 )).

7. Likewise in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and others ( 2020 (2) KHC 94 ), a Division Bench of this Court has held that, merely because a property is lying fallow and gets waterlogged during the rainy season or otherwise, due to the low-lying nature of the property, the property cannot be treated as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda , ( 2023 (6) KHC 83 ), holding that the prime consideration to retain a property in data bank is to ascertain whether paddy cultivation is possible in the land.

8. Ext.P4 order substantiates that the second respondent has not rendered any independent finding regarding the nature and character of the petitioner’s property as on the crucial date, i.e., 12.08.2008, the date of the commencement of the Act, or whether the removal of the petitioner’s property from the data bank would adversely affect the paddy cultivation. He has also not directly inspected the property or called for satellite images as envisaged under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, he has solely relied on the report of the third respondent and rejected the application. Therefore, I hold that there has been total non-application of the mind in passing Ext.P4 order. Hence, I am satisfied that Ext.P4 order is liable to be quashed and the second respondent/authorised officer be directed to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after adverting to the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and the materials available on record.

In the result, th