The authorized officer must comply with statutory requirements for land assessment as per specified rules.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Exhibit-P4 and P6 orders of the 1st respondentand Ext.P7 report of the 3rd respondent. (ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to reconsider and pass a lawful decision on the Exhibit P3 Application of the petitioner after calling for a report from the 3rd respondent on the recommendation of the Local Level Monitoring Committee after conducting a local inspectionwithin a time to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court. And (iii). To pass such other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to pass in the interest of equity, justice and good conscious considering the facts of the case. ”[SIC]

2. The petitioner and his predecessor filed Form-5 applications in accordance to Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). Both these applications were dismissed and the same is challenged in this writ petition.

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 solely based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. There is no indication in the order that the authorised officer has directly inspected the property or called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. 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 Officer, 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 is to be set aside.

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

1. Exts.P4 and P7 orders are set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent/authorised officer is directed to reconsider Ext.P3 Form – 5 application 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 personally inspect the property, the application shall be considered and disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.

4. If the authorised officer is either dismissing or allowing the petition, a speaking order as directed by this court in Vinumon v. District Collector [2025 (6) KLT 275] shall be passed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS