Writ petitions challenging administrative decisions must demonstrate compliance with statutory requirements, especially regarding land classification under relevant conservation laws.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

(i). “call for records leading to issuance of Exhibit P-11 order from the 2nd respondent and quash Exhibit-P11 order by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction;

(ii). issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the 2nd respondent to remove the petitioner’s property referred in Exhibit P-11 from the data bank and consequently direct the 4th and 5th respondents to assign Building Number to the petitioner’s residential house constructed pursuant to Exhibit P-1 Permit within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

(iii). Petitioner also prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the English translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language. And (iv). Such other reliefs as deem fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [sic]

2. The main prayer in this writ petition is against Ext.P11 order passed in a Form-5 application submitted in accordance with Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. The second prayer is to issue appropriate direction to the 2^nd respondent to remove the petitioner's property referred in Ext.P11 from the Data Bank and consequently, direct the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to assign building number to the petitioner's residential house constructed as per Ext.P1 within a time frame.

3. This Court perused Ext.P11 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 based on the report of the Agricultural Officer. Even though KSREC report is available, the same is not properly considered by the authorised officer. 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.

4. 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.

5. There are other defects also in Ext.P11. The relevant portion of Ext.P11 impugned order is extracted hereunder:

6. In Ext.P11 itself, it is stated that the property is a fallow land in the year 2003 as per the KSREC report. If the property is a fallow land, how a Form-5 application is to be considered is dealt in detail by this Court in Mather Nagar Residents Association and Another v. District Collector, Ekm and Others [ 2020 (2) KHC 94 ]. The relevant portion of the judgment 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 w