The court emphasized the necessity for proper procedural compliance in assessing land suitability for paddy cultivation under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules, 2008.

JUDGMENT

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

"(i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to the passing of order Exhibit P10 by the 1^st respondent and to quash the same and to declare that the property of the petitioner is unsuitable for paddy cultivation.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1^st respondent to remove the property of the petitioner from the land data bank and to issue a consequential notification, whereby allowing the Exhibit P4 application submitted by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent in Form No.5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules ,2008 in the light of the dicta as laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP - Vs- State of Kerala [ 2022 (7) KHC 591 ], in Muraleedharan Nair.R -Vs- Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2023 (4) KHC 524 ], 2025 KHC Online 1756 ( Jalaja S.S. -Vs- District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram) and in 2025 (4) KHC

281 [Satheesh Sankaran Namboothiri (Dr.) -

Vs- State of Kerala]

(iii) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of English Translation of the vernacular typed and vernacular documents filed in this Writ Petition (civil) on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner filed a Form – 5 application in accordance with the the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). The same was rejected as per Ext.P6 order. The petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P.(C) No. 7867 of 2024 before this Court, and this Court as per Ext.P7 judgment, set aside the order and directed the authorised officer to reconsider the matter. Now, again the Form – 5 application was rejected as per Ext.P10 order. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

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

4. This Court perused Ext.P10 order. In the first paragraph, the details of the petitioner and the description of the property are mentioned. Thereafter, the KSREC report is extracted in the next paragraph. Subsequently, the report of the Agricultural Officer is also mentioned. Consequently, the Form – 5 application was rejected. This is not the manner in which a Form – 5 application is to be considered. It will be better to extract the observations & conclusion in the KSREC report:

“OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSION The analysis has been carried out from all available data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets of 2008, 2010, 2011, 2018 and 2022 for the survey plot.

As per the toposheet of 1967, the survey plot

163/8-3 was observed as paddy land. The plot bordered by a road on west side was observed under fallow land in the data of 2008. The same land use pattern was observed to continue in the data of 2010 and 2011. The data of 2018 shows the plot under fallow land with scattered vegetation. The data of 2022 shows the plot under fallow land/exposed soil with a new pond/tank towards south – east side.”

5. From the above, it is clear that the property was a fallow land in the year 2008. There is no discussion in the impugned order as to whether the property can be cultivated with paddy. The Division Bench of this Court in Mather Nagar Residence Association and Another v. District Collector, Ekm and Others [ 2020 (2) KHC 94 ] considered this point in detail. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:

“22. Going by the definition of wetland, we a