The court established that reconsideration of the RDO's decision is required based on factual findings from a commissioned report.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the owner of 25.09 Ares of land in Survey Nos. 167/1-1, 167/1-2, 167/1-3 and 167/1-4 of Chiyyaram Village. The petitioner filed an application in Form-5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008, seeking to remove the aforesaid property from the Data Bank. By the impugned order at Ext. P7, the RDO, having refused to accept the prayer as above, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Heard Sri. S. Rishab, the learned counsel representing Sri. M.R. Dhanil for the petitioner, as well as Smt. Shylaja, the learned Government Pleader.

3. A reading of the impugned order of the RDO would show that he has refused to accept the prayer since, according to him, the property is lying low and there is water logging during the rainy season. The RDO has also made a reference to the report of KSREC. On the basis of an application filed by the petitioner, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by this Court to report on the lie and nature of the property in question. On the basis of the direction so issued, the learned Advocate Commissioner has filed a detailed report dated 23.1.2026. The findings of the Advocate Commissioner are as under:

“To sum up, my assessment revealed that the said property is not useful for cultivation since there is no proper source of running water and there is no cultivation in nearby lands. My findings are;

1. Whether surrounding properties of the applied land is constructed with building: Yes (southwest, south & east side)

2.Whether Paddy cultivation is feasible: No. 3. Is there running water facility to conduct cultivation:

No

4. Is there boundary wall surrounding the petitioner's property:yes.

The inspection concluded at around 04.15 p.m. Along with the aforementioned report, a set of photographs, true copy of the sketch and copy of the notice dated 08.01.2026 duly accepted by the parties are produced herewith.”

4. Thus, the Advocate Commissioner has categorically reported that on three sides of the property, buildings have already been put up and that the property is not at all suitable for paddy cultivation. It is further reported that there is no running water facility even if any cultivation is required to be carried out. In the light of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the RDO. So as to facilitate the above, the impugned order at Ext. P7 is set aside.

There will be a direction to the RDO to reconsider the application in Form-5 filed by the petitioner with specific reference to the findings in the report of the Advocate Commissioner referred to above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

SD/-