The authority must independently assess land character under relevant rules, ensuring compliance with established legal standards.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibits P3 and P5 and to quash the same ii. Issue a declaration that the lands having an extent of 28.42 Ares cents of land comprised in Sy.No. 298/13 of Katinamkulam Village, Thiruvananthapuram taluk is not a wetland or nilam, in view of description in Exhibit P9 iii. Petitioner also prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language.

iv. Such other reliefs which the petitioner may ask for during the course of the proceedings and which this Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.”

[SIC]

2. The Form-5 application submitted by the petitioner is rejected as per Ext.P3 order. The petitioner approached the Principal Secretary to the Government with an appeal. The Principal Secretary to the Government issued Ext.P5 order. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

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

4. Admittedly, there is no appeal against an order passed in a Form-5 application filed in accordance to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 . Therefore, Ext.P5 order will not stand. As far as Ext.P3 order is concerned, I think, it is not a speaking order.

5. This Court perused Ext.P3 order. I am of the considered opinion that the authorised officer has failed to comply with the statutory requirements. Ext.P3 order was passed by the authorised officer based on the reports of the Agricultural Officer and LLMC. 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 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. Ext.P3 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 Exts.P3 and P5 orders are to be set aside.

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

1. Exts.P3 and P5 orders are set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent / authorised o directed to reconsider the Form–5 application submitted by the petitioner, 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 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 application 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 Author