The authorized officer must independently ascertain land characteristics for exclusion under the Kerala Conservation Act.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i] Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P6 order of the 2nd respondent ii] To declare that the property of the petitioner covered by Document No. 122/1997 of SRO Mavoor which is lying in RS 46/59 of Perumanna Village, Kozhikode Taluk is not included in the data bank published under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act .

iii] In case it is found that the property of the petitioner in R.S.46/59 is included in the data bank, issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to pass an order removing the property of the petitioner covered under Document No. 122/1997 of SRO Mavoor from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act within a time frame stipulated by this Honourable Court.

iv] Dispense with English translation of the vernacular documents v] Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem just, fit and proper to grant for the redressal of the grievances of the petitioner.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed by the 2^nd respondent rejecting Ext.P4 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. 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 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. The impugned order is not in accordance with the principle laid down by this Court in the above judgments.

6. The Government Pleader submitted that an inspection is conducted in the property and thereafter the impugned order is passed. But, details of the inspection is not mentioned in the order. Moreover, from the KSERC report, it is clear that the property is a fallow land. This Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others [ 2020 (2) KHC 94 ], 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 o