The competent authority must independently assess land suitability under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing Exhibit P4 order issued by the 3^rd respondent.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent or any other competent officer to call for a report from the 7th respondent KSREC regarding the lie and nature of the property.

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to re- consider and dispose of Exhibit P3 application submitted by the Petitioner in form-5, with due consideration to KSREC report, within a time frame as may be prescribed by this Hon’ble Court.

(iv) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the production of translation of the vernacular documents produced in the Writ Petition.

(v) To issue any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the 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 solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. There is no indication in the order that the authorised officer has directly inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. 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. 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 either dismissing or allowing the petition, a speaking order as directed by this court in Vinumon v. District Collector [ 20