The competent authority must assess land suitability for paddy cultivation prior to exclusion from conservation data banks.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) “Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P3 order dated 24.06.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;

ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s Form 5 application afresh, taking into consideration the report of the 4th respondent (Village Officer) and the KSREC report (Exhibit P4), within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

iii) Declare that the petitioner’s property having been converted much prior to 2008 is not a paddy land and is liable to be removed from the data bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ;

iv) To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.

v) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper 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 based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. Even though KSREC report is available, the same is not properly considered by the authorised officer. 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.P3 order is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 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.

4. If the authorised officer is either dismissing or allowing the petition, a speaking order as directed by this court in Vinu