Court mandates adherence to statutory requirements in assessing land suitability for agriculture before rejecting conversion applications.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To call for the records leading to Ext. P5 & P6 and set aside the same, and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to reconsider the Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5 of the Kerala Conversion of Paddy and Wet Land Rules, 2008 in respect of the land comprised in Ext.P3 and remove the petitioner’s property from data bank.

ii. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get conversion of the nature of land as per the Kerala Conversion of Paddy and Wet Land Rules, 2008.

iii. Exempt the petitioner from producing the English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with this Writ Petition and the petitioner further undertakes that she is ready and willing to produce iv. Issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;

”[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the 4^th respondent rejecting the Form–5 applications submitted by him under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The petitioner filed Form-5 applications twice and both the applications were dismissed as evident by Exts.P5 and P6. 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. Exts.P5 and P6 orders are set aside.

2. The 4^th respondent/authorised officer is directed to 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 pr