The competent authority must comply with statutory mandates when assessing applications for exclusion under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records leading to Ext.P3 order and quash the same.

ii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to first respondent to allow the application submitted by the petitioner under Form No. 5 of the Act, 2008 as evidenced by Ext.P2. OR a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the first respondent to reconsider application submitted by the petitioner under Form 5 of the Act, 2008 on the basis of the KSREC report and afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a reasonable time.

iii. Such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature of this case.

iv. a direction to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular document produced with this writ petition. ”[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 1^st 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 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. Ext.P3 order is set aside.