The authorized officer must comply with statutory inspection requirements and consider satellite imagery when making decisions under land conservation rules.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P5 dated 23.1.2024 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari finding that it is illegal.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 6th respondent to reconsider and pass orders on Ext.P4 in Form 5 application taking into consideration the KSREC report after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a time limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

iii) Declare that the property of the petitioner extending to of 6.7 Ares of property in Survey No. 741/1-20 of Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District is not a paddy land and is liable to be excluded from the data bank.

iv) Dispense with filing of translation of vernacular documents.

v) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2^nd 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. 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.P5 order is set aside.

2. The 6^th respondent/authorised o reconsider Ext.P4 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 within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE GBG