The court emphasizes the requirement for a speaking order when reconsidering land classification under conservation laws.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i) “Call for records leading to Exhibit P6, Form 5 rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent/authorised officer and quash the same.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent/authorised officer to reconsider the Exhibit P3 form 5 application and pass orders based on the KSREC report as well as the remark entered in the notified Data Bank.

iii) To dispense with the production of translated vernacular documents. &

iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” [sic]

2. The petitioner filed a form-5 application in accordance with Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. The same was rejected as per Ext.P4. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C.) No. 20499/2023. This Court set aside the same and directed to reconsider the form-5 application. Thereafter, form-5 application was again considered and the same was rejected as per Ext.P6. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. This Court perused Ext.P6 order. Even after Ext.P5 judgment, a speaking order is not passed by the authorised officer. The Government Pleader takes me through the last sentence in 2^nd paragraph of Ext.P6. This Court perused the same. It stated that, as per KSREC report, the property in dispute is not converted before 2008. Ext.P7 is the KSREC report. It will be better to extract the observation and conclusion in Ext.P7 report.

“The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of

2008, 2010, 2011, 2017 and 2022 for the survey plot.

As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 48/3was observed as paddy land. The plot bordered by a road on west side was observed under fallow land with partially exposed soil towards west side in the data of 2008. The same land use pattern was observed to continue in the data of 2010 and 2011. The data of 2017 shows the plot under fallow land with vegetation towards west side. The data of 2022 shows the plot under scattered mixed vegetation/plantation with a building/structure toward south-east side.”

5. A perusal of the same would show that the plot bordered by a road on west side was observed under fallow land with partially exposed soil towards west side in the data of 2008. This Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ekm and Others [ 2020 (2) KHC 94 ] observed like this :

22. “Going by the definition of wetland, we are of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the characteristic features and requirement as is provided under Act, 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well as report of KSREC, the nodal agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is also significant to note that from the definition of wetland under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSREC is not disputed by the Residents Association. Merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. That apart on a query made by us, counsel on either side submitted that, the properties in question have access from the National Highway from Kochi to Coimbatore and by the side of Kochi Metro line, which are also admi