The authorized officer must inspect properties and adhere to statutory mandates before rendering decisions on land use applications under relevant Rules.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order calling the records of Ext.P18 dated 13.12.2023 of the 3rd respondent and quash to the same to the extent it rejected the Form 5 application for 11.95 Ares of land.

ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get an order for removal of entire 16.60 Ares of land from the data bank in view of the KSRSEC report iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order calling the records of Ext.P10 dated 8.2.2016 and Ext.P11 letter dated 8.2.2016 of the 5th respondent and consequential changes made in the revenue records like BTR and Thandaper Register and quash the same holding that the same is illegal.

iv) To declare that the 5th respondent has no authority to pass Ext.P10 order under S.13 A of the Surveys and Boundaries Act and the power to revision lies on District Collector only in case of dispute in fixing boundaries.

v) To declare that it is not possible to change the nature of land in resurvey records published under Surveys and Boundaries Act by exercising the power under S.13A vi) To declare that the 5th respondent has no power to change the nature of land in Basic Tax register prepared under Kerala Land Tax Act as per.S.18, after a period of 4 years.

vii) To declare that it is mandatory to hear with due notice on affected parties before passing orders under Surveys and Boundaries Act and Kerala Land Tax Act viii) To declare that the particulars of property entered in settlement register or old survey records has no effect after implementation of resurvey records and Basic Tax Register ix) To declare that the respondents No.2 to 6 have no power to revise or rectify the mistake in resurvey records and basic tax register after a period of 40 years, after transfer of property to several persons, who purchased the property after verification of revenue records x) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P18 order, which was partially allowed by the authorised officer -3rd respondent in a Form-5 application filed 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 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