The court emphasizes the need for comprehensive evaluation and personal inspection prior to the rejection of land protection applications.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner had filed an application in Form 5 under the Kerala Paddy Land-Wetland Protection Rules , 2008, with respect to the property extending to 14 ares in Re-Sy. No. 120/8 and 6.2 ares in Re-Sy. No. 120/9-1-1 of Kallikkad Village. Vide impugned order at Ext. P3, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), having rejected the application filed as above, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Heard Smt. M. Bindudas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt. Shylaja S. L., the learned Government Pleader.

3. On a perusal of the order at Ext. P3, this Court notices that the afore order has been issued solely on the basis of a report obtained from the Agricultural Officer. The RDO has not obtained any report from the KSREC. Similarly, no personal inspection of the property is seen to have been carried out.

4. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the application in Form 5 filed by the petitioner requires reconsideration. So as to facilitate the above, the order at Ext. P3 is set aside.

5. The RDO shall consider the application filed by the petitioner afresh, also with reference to the report from the KSREC to be obtained, and after carrying out a personal inspection of the property, if so advised. Needless to say, the petitioner is to remit the fee for obtaining the report from the KSREC. Needful shall be done in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of twelve weeks from today.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-