The authorized officer must assess land suitability per statutory requirements in applications under land conservation rules.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To pass a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside Exhibit P11 Order passed by the 3rd respondent herein as it is not in compliance with law and directions of this Honourable Court.

ii. To pass a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent herein to re-consider Exhibit P5 Form 5 application by conducting proper site inspection and considering the Exhibit P13 order passed by the 2nd respondent herein within a time frame as may be decided by this Honourable Court.

iii. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be as this Honourable Court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice.

iv. Pleased to dispense with English translation of the documents produced herewith.

v. Award costs to the petitioners”[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 3^rd 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.P11 order is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 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 Vinumon v. District Collector [ 2025 (6) KLT 275 ] shall be passed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS