Land classification as paddy or wetland requires adherence to statutory definitions, and dismissals must reflect due judicial process.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to the passing of order Exhibit P9 by the 1st respondent and to quash the same and to declare that the property of the petitioner is unsuitable for paddy cultivation.

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to remove the property of the petitioner from the land data bank and to issue a consequential notification, whereby allowing the Exhibit P3 application submitted by the petitioner in Form No.5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules ,2008 in the light of the dicta as laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP -Vs- State of Kerala [ 2022 (7) KHC 591 ], in Muraleedharan Nair.R -Vs- Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2023 (4) KHC 524 ], 2025 KHC Online 1756 ( Jalaja S.S. -Vs- District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram ) and in 2025 (4) KHC 281 [Satheesh Sankaran Namboothiri (Dr.) -Vs- State of Kerala].

iii. to dispense with the filing of English Translation of the vernacular typed and vernacular documents filed in this Writ Petition (civil) on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iv. grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (SIC)

2. Petitioner filed a Form-5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 and the same was rejected. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court, by filing WP(C) No.38887/2023. This Court set aside that order and directed to reconsider the matter, as per Ext.P7 judgment. Thereafter Ext.P9 order is passed, again dismissing the Form-5 application.

Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. Ext.P8 is the KSREC report as far as the property is concerned. It will be better to extract Observations & Conclusion in Ext.P8:

“The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2008, 2010, 2011, 2018 and

2022 for the survey plot.

As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot 457/13 was observed as paddy land. The plot was observed under fallow land in the data of 2008. The same land use pattern was observed to continue in the data of 2010 and 2011. The data of 2018 shows the plot under scattered mixed vegetation. The data of 2022 shows the plot under mixed vegetation plantation trees.”

5. A perusal of the same would show that the plot was observed under fallow land in data of 2008. If that is the case, the authorised officer has to consider the principle laid down by this Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others [ 2020 (2) KHC 94 ], the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:

“22. Going by the definition of wetland, we are of the view that, in order to treat a particular land as wetland, it should have the characteristic features and requirement as is provided under Act, 2008. It is clear from the report submitted by the Sub Collector before the Apex Court as well as report of KSREC, the nodal agency of State Government, that the properties in question is a fallow land. Fallow land is never treated as wetland in accordance with the provisions of Act, 2008. It is also significant to note that from the definition of wetland under Act, 2008, paddy land and rivers are excluded. The report submitted by the KSREC is not disputed by the Residents Association. Merely because the property is lying fallow and water gets logged during rainy season or otherwise due to the low lying nature of the property, it cannot be termed as wetland or paddy land in contemplation of Act, 2008. That apart on a query made by us, counsel on either side su