The statutory authority must assess land suitability for conversion in accordance with the established legal framework and precedents.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i)Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order calling the records of Ext.P8 order dated 3.1.2024 of 3^rd respondent and quash the same to the extent it rejecting the application except 3.32 in Re.Sy No.183/6-1 holding that the same is illegal.

ii)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order directing the 3^rd respondent to allow the Ext.P5, form 5 application in total in the light of Ext.P6 report from the KSRSEC and Ext.P1 and P2.

iii)To declare that the property of the petitioner is not a paddy or wet land as per Ext.P1, P2 coupled with Ext.P6, and liable to be removed from the data bank published by the 5^th respondent iv)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order of direction, commanding the 3^rd respondent to allow Ext.P10 and P11 Applications and grant S27A permission to the property which is already removed from the data bank as per Ext.P8 and P9.

v)To declare that petitioner is entitled to get permission under S.27A of Act 2008 since the property was converted before the commencement of Act 2008 as evident from Ext. P1, P2 and P6 vi)To declare that only thing to consider, while form.5 application, is that, whether the property is paddy or suitable for paddy cultivation and if the property is not fit for paddy cultivation, then the 3rd respondent is bound to remove from the data bank vii)This Hon’ble Court be pleased to dispense with production of translation of malayalam documents viii)issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case.”[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order passed by the 3^rd respondent by which a Form–5 application submitted by the petitioner under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity) was partially allowed. Subsequently, the portion of the property in which the Form – 5 application was allowed, the petitioner filed a Form – 6 application and that application was also allowed. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that, in Ext.P8 order, the Form-5 application was rejected in respect of the property situated in Survey Nos. 183/14, 183/15, and 1.13 Ares in Survey No. 183/6-1. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioner.

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

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Form-5 application in respect of the petitioner’s adjacent property was allowed, as evident by Ext.P9, and that the same may also be directed to be considered by the authorised officer while deciding the matter.

5. 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.

6. 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