The court emphasizes the necessity for detailed examination of applications under conservation laws, mandating consideration of scientific data.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext. P5 order and quash the same.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to reconsider Ext. P2 application and pass orders afresh taking note of Ext P6 KSREC report.

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

iv) 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 filed a Form – 5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity) as evident by Ext.P2. The same was rejected as per Ext.P3. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19048 of 2023. This Court, as per Ext.P4 judgment, set aside the same, and directed to reconsider the Form – 5 application. Now, again the Form – 5 application was rejected as per Ext.P5. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

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

4. This Court perused Ext.P5 order and Ext.P4 judgment, by which the authorised officer was directed to reconsider the matter. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P4 judgment:

“4. After carefully going through the materials placed on record, I find some force in the contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by him, Ext.P5 order does not contain any details of adjudication of the characteristic of the petitioner’s property, but instead, they simply accepted the report of the LLMC. The manner in which an application in Form-5 has to be considered is specifically laid down by the observations of this Court in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala [2022 (7) KHC 591] , wherein in paragraph 8 the following observations were made:

“8.This Court is of the view that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not justified in taking a decision on merits on the application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5. The most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation. The Revenue Divisional Officer, if he was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSREC. Ext.P8 proceedings to the extent it does not take a final decision on Form-5 application cannot stand the scrutiny of law.”

5. When all the aforesaid aspects are taken into consideration, including the fact that, Ext.P5 order is a nonspeaking order, the matter has to be reconsidered.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P5, with a direction to the 2nd respondent or the authorized officer under Section 2(vxA) of the Kerala Conservation of the Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, to pass fresh orders on Ext.P3 application after examining the scientific records such as a report from the 6 th respondent. To enable the 2^nd respondent or the authorized o take such a decision, the petitioner shall submit an application along with the prescribed fees, to the 5th respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, for obtaining a report from the 6th respondent, based on the satellite images of the property of the petitioner as it stood prior to the introduction of the Act. Thereupon, the said application shall be submitted by the 5th respondent before the 6th respondent within