Court emphasized adherence to statutory definitions for land classification under conservation laws.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction and quash Ext.P7, Order dated 13.02.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent.

ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction and direct the 2nd respondent to delete the petitioner’s property comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.334/18,20 (BTR- 334/11) in Block No.23 of Erimayur-II Village, Alathur Taluk in Palakkad District having an extent of 0.1173 Ha from the Ext.P3, Data Bank.

iii. dispense the production of English Translation of the documents produced in the above W.P.(c) and Petitioner undertakes to produce the same as and when required by this Hon’ble Court.

iv. Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner filed a Form-5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The same was rejected and the petitioner challenged the same before this Court, by filing WP(C) No.29198/2023. This Court set aside that order and directed to reconsider the Form-5 application, as per Ext.P6 judgment. Thereafter Ext.P7 order is passed. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. Ext.P7 is not a speaking order. Admittedly a KSREC report is obtained in this case. A perusal of the KSREC report would show that the property was observed under the fallow land with mixed vegetation/plantation. Thereafter the inspection was conducted from the office of the authorised Officer and not by the authorised officer. Based on the report of the office staff of the authorised officer, the impugned order is passed. When the KSREC report shows that it is a fallow land, the manner in which the matter is to be considered by the authorised officer is discussed in detail by this Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others [ 2020 (2) KHC 94 ], the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: “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 the side of Kochi Metro line, which are also admittedly developed areas with large number of residential, commercial and multi utility buildings apart from various educational and religious institutions, thus having no scope for any paddy cultivation.

In the light of the above decision, I am of the considered opinion that the matter is to be reconsidered.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Ext.P7 is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by th