The authorized officer must conduct a proper assessment of land character to determine suitability for agricultural use.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To declare that the petitioner is legally entitled to get his property changed from Nilam to Purayidom/ Dry Land.

ii. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction setting aside Exhibit P6 issued by the 3rd respondent under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act of 2008 as null and void since it is not issued in accordance with law.

iii. To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the respondents to change the nature of land to Purayidom from Nilam in all the revenue records considering that the property of the petitioner covered by Exhibit P1 Sale Deed is dry land.

iv. Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the 3rd Respondent to consider the Exhibit P5 application submitted by the petitioner in Form 5 favourably in accordance with law and change the nature of land from Nilam to Dry Land/Purayidom after conducting a site inspection as required by law and also affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

v. Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

vi. Issue any other appropriate Writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary on the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting Ext.P5 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 based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. Even though, 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 can be set aside.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:

1. Ext.P6 order is set aside.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer / authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 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