The Court emphasized the necessity for competent authority to conduct a thorough assessment and independently verify the nature of land in compliance with statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Call for the records relating to exhibits P1 to Ext.P10;

ii) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing exhibit P10 order;

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction allowing Ext.P9 application as prayed for and in the alternative, directing the 3rd respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry as mandated in the Kerala Consideration of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 especially in the backdrop of exhibit P8 and the order passed in respect of exhibits P2 and P3 properties and to dispose of exhibit P9 application in that backdrop in a time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court after having afforded an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner;

iv) dispense with the production of true English translation of the Malayalam documents produced herewith;

and v)pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and necessary in the interests of justice.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 3^rd 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the adjacent property owned by the petitioner as per Exts.P2 and P3, is already deleted from the data bank as per Exts.P11 and P12. Ext.P8 is another order of the property adjacent to the property of the petitioner. Even then the Form 5 application of the petitioner is not considered is the grievance.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

5. 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.

6. 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.P10 order is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent/authorised o to reconsider Ext.P9 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 authori