The classification of land as 'fallow' does not preclude its consideration for paddy cultivation, necessitating reconsideration of applications under conservation statutes.

JUDGMENT

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

"i. Call for records leading to Ext.P5 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P5.

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to allow Ext.P4 Form 5 application and remove petitioner’s land from the data bank within such time as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court iii. issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.

iv. award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.

v. dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced as Exhibits in the writ petition."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 Form – 5 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The same was rejected, and the petitioner challenged the rejection order before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.114 of 2024. This Court set aside that order and directed the authorised officer to reconsider the Form – 5 application. Thereafter, Ext.P5 order was passed. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

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

4. Ext.P5 is an order passed based on the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.114 of 2024. This Court perused Ext.P5 order. Paragraph Nos. 1 to 4 deals about the facts of the case, which leads to the decision in W.P.(C) No.114 of 2024. In paragraph No.5, it is stated that the authorised officer inspected the property and found that it is a water logged area. It is also stated that the property is a fallow land. If the property is a fallow land, the authorised officer should decide whether the same is cultivable with paddy. This point is considered by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. Simply because the property is waterlogged, that is not a reason to reject the Form 5 application. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the matter is to be reconsidered by the authorised officer.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Ext.P5 order is set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent/authorised o to reconsider Ext.P4 Form – 5 application in the light of Ext.P1 to P3 judgments, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-