Authorized officers must independently assess land nature to comply with conservation laws.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“ i). issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing 2nd respondent to issue an order for removing the land belonging to the petitioner comprised in Karavaram Village, Chirayinkeezhu Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram. from the data bank within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble court;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing 3rd respondent to issue an order for reclaiming the land of the petitioner comprised in Karavaram Village, Chirayinkeezhu Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble court;

iii) Declare that the property comprised in Sy. No.s 260/4 and 260/8 of Karavaram Village, Chirayinkeezhu Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram. is not paddy land and wet land and the provisions of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 is not applicable; AND iv) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exhibit P4.

v) to issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.”[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by the petitioner 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. Eventhough 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.P4 order is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P3 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 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 authorised officer is e