Statutory compliance in revenue applications must be correctly followed; paddy land assessments require independent verification.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. To call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and P10 from the Respondents and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate, writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P4 and P10 orders wrongly including the reclaimed 2.83 Ares of land comprised in Re- Sy.No:431/78 in Block No:21 in Thandaper No:7866 of Pudupariyaram-II Village belonging to the petitioner in the Data Bank and thereby declining to correct the entries contained in the Data Bank.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd Respondent to allow Exhibit P7 application submitted by the petitioner in Form-5 in Rule (4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Rules , 2008 in respect of 2.83 Ares of land comprised in Re-Sy.No:431/78 in Block No:21 in Thandaper No:7866 of Pudupariyaram-II Village after physically verifying the land and ground realities adverting to Exhibits P5, P8 and P9 and correct the entries contained in the Data Bank within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon’ble Court.

iii. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get allow Exhibit P7 application in Form-5 in Rule (4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Rules , 2008 in respect of 2.83 Ares of land comprised in Re-Sy.No:431/78 in Block No:21 in Thandaper No:7866 of Pudupariyaram-II Village after physically verifying the land and ground realities adverting to Exhibits P5, P8 and P9 and correct the entries contained in the Data Bank.

iv. To dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language.

v. To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(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 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 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.P10 order is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P7 Form – 5 application in accordance with the law. The authorised officer shall either conduct a personal inspection of the property or, alternat