The court affirmed that competent authorities must independently assess land suitability against established criteria, disregarding mere reliance on external decisions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P20 order, whereby Form-5 application submitted by them has been rejected by the 1^st respondent, solely relying on the report of the Agricultural Officer. The petitioners would contend that there is no independent consideration by the 2^nd respondent regarding the issue involved.

2. The petitioners are the owners in possession and enjoyment of property having an extent of 17.99 Ares in Sy.No.873/10B of Pathiyoor Village.

3. This Court in Salim C.K. and Another v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2017 (1) KHC 394 ] has held that the Data Bank that was contemplated as per the provisions of the Act was to contain details only of cultivable paddy land and wetland within the area of jurisdiction of LLMC concerned. Further in Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala [ 2020 (5) KHC 490 ] has held that the data bank to be prepared under the Act is the data bank of the cultivable paddy land existing as on the date of the coming into force of the Rules, i.e., 24.12.2008. In Joy v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector [ 2021 (1) KLT 433 ] it was held that it is the character and fitness of the land as available on 12.08.2008, that matters, to include or exclude a land from the data bank. This court in Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala[2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1222] has held that the most relevant aspect while considering Form-5 application is whether the land in question was a paddy land or a wetland when the Act, 2008 came into force and whether the land is fit for paddy cultivation and if the Revenue Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the available materials, ought to have resorted to scientific data including satellite photographs obtained from KSREC. This court in Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KLT 270] has held that when the petitioner seeks removal of his land from the Data Bank, it will not be sufficient for the Revenue Divisional Officer to dismiss the application simply stating that the LLMC has decided not to remove the land from Data Bank. The Revenue Divisional Officer being the competent authority, has to independently assess the status of the land and come to a conclusion that removal of the land from Data Bank will adversely affect paddy cultivation in the land in question or in the nearby paddy lands or that it will adversely affect sustenance of wetlands in the area and in the absence of such findings, the impugned order is unsustainable. Further, this Court in Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer [ 2023 (5) KLT 432 ] has held that the predominant factor for consideration while considering the Form-5 application should be whether the land which is sought to be excluded from Data Bank is one where paddy cultivation is possible and feasible.

4. In spite of these categorical declaration by this Court in a catena of judgments as cited above, the application submitted by the petitioners has been rejected solely relying on the decision of the LLMC, not to remove the land from the data bank.

5. In view of the above, Ext.P20 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 1^st respondent to reconsider the Form-5 application submitted by the petitioners and take a final decision in the matter after considering Ext.P8 KSREC report as well as the relevant factors stipulated in Rule 4 (4f) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 and after conducting a site inspection. Petitioners will be free to file an argument note incorporating copies of the judgments relied on by them to substantiate their contentions and the 1^st respondent, while reconsidering the matter as directed above, shall advert to the findings by this Court in those