The authority must independently assess land suitability under legislation before making decisions on applications related to paddy land conservation.

JUDGMENT

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

"i. a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records leading to Ext.P5 & P5(a) orders and quash the same.

ii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to first respondent to allow the application submitted by the petitioner under Form No. 5 of the Act, 2008 as evidenced by Ext.P3 & P3(a).

OR a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the first respondent to reconsider application submitted by the petitioner under Form 5 of the Act, 2008 on the basis of the KSREC report and afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a reasonable time.

iii. such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature of this case.

iv. a direction to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular document produced with this writ petition. ”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the 1^st respondent rejecting the Form–5 applications submitted by her 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 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. Even though, KSREC report is available, the same is not properly considered by the authorised officer. 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 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 is to be set aside.

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

1. Exts.P5 and P5(a) orders are set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent/authorised o reconsider Exts.P3 and P3(a) Form – 5 applications 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 applications 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)