Authorized officer must comply with statutory requirements when assessing land use classification under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P4 dated 1.11.2024 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari finding that it is illegal.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider and pass orders on Ext.P3 in Form 5 application taking into consideration the KSREC report as well as Village Officers report after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a time limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

iii) Declare that the property of the petitioner lying in 6.89 Ares of land lying in Sy No.110/1-3, of Thiruvaniyoor Village in Kunnathunad Taluk in Block No. 41 Ernakulam District is not a paddy land and is liable to be excluded from the data bank.

iv) Dispense with filing of translation of vernacular documents.

v) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner filed a Form 5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land And Wet Land Act , 2008, for removing his land from the data bank. The same was rejected as per Ext.P4. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the 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. 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 inMuraleedharan 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.

6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, there was an inspection of the property and thereafter the impugned order is passed. But a perusal of the impugned order itself would shows that the inspection is from the office of the authorised officer and there is no inspection by the authorised officer. Moreover, as per Ext.P6 KSREC report, it is stated that, the crop was observed under fallow land with scattered vegetation in the data of 2008 and 2010.

7. This Court in Mather Nagar Residents association and another V. District Collector Ernakulum and Others [2020 (2) KLT 192] , observed like this: “22. Going by the definition of wetland, we are of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the characteristic features and requirement as is provided under Act, 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well as report of KSREC, the nodal agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is als