The competent authority must thoroughly assess the nature and suitability of the land for paddy cultivation before making exclusion decisions under conservation laws.

JUDGMENT

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

“i) Call for records leading to Exhibit P1 and set aside the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents the 1st respondent to delete the property of the petitioner from the data bank so as to enable the petitioner to develop his property;

iii) Dispense with the filing of English translation of vernacular documents iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

[SIC]

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.P1. 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 a statement is filed as directed by this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, as per the KSREC report, the property is shown as fallow with mixed vegetation and plantation.

8. 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 also significant to note that from the definition of wetland under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSREC is not disputed by the Residents Association. Merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. That apart on a query made by us, counsel on either side submitted that, the propert