The competent authority must assess land suitability for paddy cultivation before excluding it from statutory classifications.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P3 and to quash the same.

b) Issue a declaration that the lands having an extent of of 34.34 Ares Re-survey No. 102/5, Block No.9 of Koovappadi Village in Kunathunadu Taluk is not a paddy land as defined in Section 2 (xii) of the 2008 Act.

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 5th respondent, Agricultural Officer to report the status of the subject land including number and age of trees therein.

d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 3rd respondent to issue fresh orders on the application in Form 5, strictly following Rule sub rule (4E) and (4F of Rule 4 of the 2008 rules and the law declared by this Hon’ble Court through various judgments. e) Dispense the petitioner from producing the English translation of the vernacular documents produced in the writ petition.

f) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant 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 him 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. Eventhough 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. 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.P3 order is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent/authorised o directed to reconsider Form – 5 application submitted by the petitioner 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 thi