Compliance with statutory requirements for assessing land suitability for paddy cultivation is essential in exclusion applications.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i). Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.

(ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner, in the light of Ext.P3 order relating to the adjacent property and Ext.P8 KSRSEC report, within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

(iii). Declare that the petitioner’s property having an extent of 4.05 Ares in Re.Sy.No.394/4-1 of Thrikkodithanam Village, Changanassery Taluk, is not a paddy land or suitable for paddy cultivation as on the date of commencement of Act 28 of 2008, and hence liable to be excluded from the Data Bank.

(iv) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to dispense with production of translation of malayalam documents (v). Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. ”

[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 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.

6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, Ext.P5 order is passed after an inspection, and subsequently again the petitioner filed a Form 5 application as evident by Ext.P7 based on Ext.P3. This Court perused Ext.P5 order. A perusal of Ext.P5 order would show that, the inspection was conducted from the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Moreover, the petitioner has got a contention that the adjacent property was already removed from the data bank, as evident by Ext.P3. If that is the case, the application can be directed to reconsider, after setting aside Ext.P5.

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

1. Ext.P5 order is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent/authorised o reconsider Ext.P7 Form – 5 applicat