Court mandates comprehensive evaluation for land exclusion per established principles under relevant conservation laws.

JUDGMENT

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

"(I) Issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash Exhibit P-3 Order passed by the 1strespondent and it’s all further proceedings.

(II). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st or 2nd respondent to reconsider and pass a speaking Order on Exhibit P-2 Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with Sec. 27-A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008 afresh within a time limit after obtaining the satellite report from KSRSEC.

(III). Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 6 to delete or exclude petitioners’ property having a total extend of 19.42 Ares of land (48 cents) comprised in Survey No’s. 756/1-3,756 1-4 and 755/PT2 of Puthoor village in Thrissur Taluk in Thrissur District as per registered sale deed No.9/2009 of SRO Kuttanelloor dated 01-01-2009 from the data bank on the basis of Exhibit P-2 Form No. 5 application submitted by the petitioner and allow the same, within a time frame.

(IV). Dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.

AND (V). Issue such other relief this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by them under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules , 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The main grievance of the petitioners is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioners.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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.

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

1. Ext.P3 order is set aside.

2. The 2^nd respondent/authorised o to reconsider Ext.P2 Form – 5 application 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 petitioners, 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 applicat