The court emphasized the necessity for proper administrative procedure and evidence in land conservation applications.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of an extent of 0.0255 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.564/26(564/9) of Alathur Village. Insofar as the property as above, was included in the data bank, she submitted an application in Form 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (for short, the ‘Rules’) for removing the property from the data bank. The afore application at Ext.P2 was presented on 06.09.2019. The petitioner states that since no reply was received till 01.01.2021, she submitted Ext.P3 to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Palakkad, just as a reminder. Then, the petitioner was informed that the application was originally disposed of by an order at Ext.P6 dated 24.07.2020. However, the same was not being communicated to the petitioner. The RDO issued an order at Ext.P4 deciding to exclude the property from the data bank. However, the District Collector by Ext.P5 dated 23.11.2022, found that there were no provisions under the Rules, as per which such a fresh order could be issued by the RDO when the application was originally rejected by the order at Ext.P6. Having found so, the District Collector has set aside Ext.P4, on account of which, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to challenge the findings in Ext.P5.

2. Heard Sri.Manuvilsan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

3. As regards the ultimate finding in Ext.P5 that the RDO has no power for passing a fresh order in the nature of one at Ext.P4; there cannot be any dispute. The RDO, having once passed the order at Ext.P6, he ought not to have issued the order at Ext.P4. This is only what is found by the District Collector while issuing Ext.P5. Therefore, the finding in Ext.P5 cannot be said to be incorrect or arbitrary.

4. At the same time, this Court is of the opinion that the application filed by the petitioner in Form 5 has not been properly considered, even with reference to the contents of Ext.P6 dated 24.07.2020. Admittedly, the report of the KSREC is not obtained, which goes to the root of the matter. Insofar as the findings in Ext.P4 are in favour of the petitioner with reference to the actual nature of the property, I am of the opinion that the matter requires to be considered by the RDO afresh.

In such circumstances, while finding no fault with the order at Ext.P5, this writ petition would stand allowed, directing a fresh consideration of Form 5 application filed by the petitioner at the hands of the RDO. The RDO to obtain the report from the KSREC and also to carry out a personal visit of the property before issuing orders as above. Needless to say, the petitioner is to remit the fee required for obtaining the report of the KSREC. Needful shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-