An authorized officer must comply with statutory requirements and consider all relevant factors before making a decision on property applications.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Call for the records leading to Ext-P5 and if found necessary to set aside Ext-P4 also, and then may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari and set aside the same in the interest of justice.

ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order, or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to take up the application leading to Ext-P5, again and to dispose of the same on merits, within specified time limits as may be fixed by this Hon’ble court in the interest of justice.

iii) To exempt the petitioner from production of the translated copies of the documents in vernacular language.

AND iv) To pass any such or further orders as the petitioner may seek and this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P5 orders passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the Form–5 applications submitted by him. 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 orders. I am of the considered opinion that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. The impugned orders were 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 O 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 orders are 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 orders are to be set aside.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:

1. Exts.P4 and P5 orders are set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent / authorised o directed to reconsider the Form–5 applications submitted by the petitioner, 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 applications 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 the judgment dated 05.11.2025 in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275], shall be passed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE nvj