Judicial review mandates strict adherence to statutory requirements in land use decisions, with authority limited to specified powers under the relevant Act.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the 3^rd Respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s Form 5 application dated 24.09.2020 strictly in compliance with the directions and findings contained in Exhibit P5 proceedings of the 2^nd Respondent, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) Declare that the failure of the 3^rd Respondent to act upon Exhibit P5 is illegal and unsustainable in law.

(iii) Dispense with the production of English translation of documents produced in vernacular language.

(iv) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner challenges Exts.P3 and P5 orders. The petitioner submitted a Form-5 application in accordance with the provisions under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The same was rejected, as is evident by Ext.P3 order. The petitioner wrongly filed an appeal against the same invoking the powers under Section 27B of the Act. The District Collector, invoking the powers under Section 27B of the Act, interfered with Ext.P3 order and directed reconsideration of the matter.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed 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.

6. I am of the considered opinion that the District Collector has no jurisdiction to invoke the appellate jurisdiction in respect of a Form-5 application. There is no power conferred on the District Collector to consider an appeal against a Form-5 order. Therefore, Ext.P5 order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

1. Exts.P3 and P5 orders are set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent/authorised o to reconsider the petitioner’s Form – 5 application dated 24.09.2020, 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.