The court emphasized the necessity for proper assessment of land suitability for paddy cultivation under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.

JUDGMENT

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

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext. P5 order and quash the same.

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to reconsider the petitioners’ Form 5 application afresh in accordance with law, strictly adverting to the KSREC report (Ext.P6) and the observations in Ext.P4 judgment, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

iii) direct the respondents to remove the petitioners’ property comprised in Re-Survey No.72/1 (Old Survey No.288/3-2) of Kalady Village, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District, having an extent of 6 Ares 8.66 Sqm, from the Data Bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 .

iv) To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.

v) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. The petitioners filed a Form – 5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The same was rejected as per Ext.P3 order. The petitioners challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.33399 of 2024. This Court as per Ext.P4 judgment, set aside Ext.P3 order with specific directions. Consequently, Ext.P5 order was passed by the authorised officer rejecting the Form – 5 application submitted by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused Ext.P4 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P4 judgment:

“5. The petitioners’ specific case is that, their property is a garden land. The said property is not suitable for paddy cultivation. Even going by the report of the Agricultural Officer, there are trees of 20 years standing in the property and the same is lying fallow. The petitioners have also produced Ext.P5 photographs to substantiate that there are buildings in the adjacent property.

6. In a host of judicial pronouncements, this Court has held that, it is nature, lie, character and fitness of the land, and whether the land is suitable for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008 i.e., the date of coming into force of the Act, are the relevant criteria to be ascertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer to exclude a property from the data bank (read the decisions of 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 and others ( 2021 (1) KLT 433 )).

7. Ext.P3 order reveals that the 2nd respondent has rejected Ext.P2 application solely on the basis of the report of the 6th respondent. In fact, the 6th respondent has stated that there are trees above 20 years of age in the petitioners’ property and the same is a low-lying land.

8. In Sudheesh’s case (supra), this Court has emphatically held that, just because a property is left fallow, the land cannot be brought into the definition of the paddy land. Instead, the Revenue Divisional Officer has to be satisfied that the land is suitable for paddy cultivation and left fallow, and only on satisfying the twin conditions, the land can be treated as paddy land falling under the definition of the Act.

9. In the case on hand, even going by Ext.P4 KSREC report, it is evident that the petitioners’ property is covered with scattered plantation towards south and west side and there is a building/structure towards southern side in the data of 2008. The said land pattern has been continued in 2018 and 2022. However, these two aspects have not been considered by the 2nd respondent. Hence, I hold that there is total non-application of mind in passing the impugned order. The entire decisi