Court emphasized the need for independent consideration by the authorised officer in land classification disputes under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

a) “issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, directions or orders calling for the records leading upto Exhibits P10 and quash the same;

b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders compelling the respondents to correct the classification of the property of the petitioner as Purayidom/dry land instead of “Paddy Field” or “Nilam”in the Data Bank and as sought for by the petitioner in Exhibit P3;

c) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders restraining the respondents from further proceeding against the petitioner in respect of the land of the petitioner under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and the Rules made thereunder;

d) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the 3rd respondent to exclude the land of the petitioner from the Land Data Bank and since the data bank has already been finalised by the 3rd respondent directing him to issue corrigendum notification showing the exclusion of the land of the petitioner from the data bank and publish the said corrigendum notification in the Kerala Gazette within a time to be specified by this Honourable Court;

e) to dispense with the filing of the translation of the vernacular documents;

f) to grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.” [sic]

2. The petitioner filed a Form-5 application in accordance with Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. The same was rejected as per Ext.P7 order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner challenged the same before this Court by filing WP(C) No. 7607/2021. This Court as per Ext.P8 judgment set aside the same and directed to reconsider the matter. Now, again Form-5 application is rejected as per Ext.P10. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the Government Pleader to get instructions whether the inspection, which is mentioned in Ext.P10 order is conducted by the authorised officer himself. The Government Pleader after getting instructions submitted that the inspection is conducted by the Junior Superintendent from the office of the authorised officer.

5. This Court perused Ext.P10 order. Paragraph Nos. 1 and 2 are the reiterations of the facts and details of the property. It is true that in 2^nd paragraph, it is stated that a hearing was conducted. But, thereafter, a perusal of the 3^rd paragraph shows that the conclusion is based on the inspection conducted from the office of the authorised officer. That itself shows that the authorised officer has not considered the matter independently. The impugned order is not in tune with the principle laid down by this Court in Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6) KLT 275 ].

Therefore, once again the impugned order is to be set aside.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions :

1) Ext.P10 is set aside.

2) The 1^st respondent/authorised officer is directed to consider the Form-5 application in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Vinumon's case (supra) as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-