The court emphasized the requirement for the Appellate Authority to conduct an independent assessment of evidence in administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" i. a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records leading to Exts. P4 & P7 orders and quash the same.

ii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to respondents to allow application submitted by the petitioner under Form 6 of the Act, 2008."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner filed a Form - 6 application in accordance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act , 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 2008'). The same is rejected as per Ext.P4. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same, as evident by Ext.P5. Ext.P6 is the report submitted by the Village Officer, by the which Village Officer recommended for the conversion. But, the Appellate Authority dismissed the same as per Ext.P7. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. This Court perused Ext.P6 report of the Village Officer. A perusal of the same would show that the Village Officer recommended for conversion. The same is adverted to in Ext.P7 order of the Appellate Authority. But, extracting the reports of the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer and also referring an inspection conducted by the Charge Officer, the Appellate Authority simply rejected the appeal without independently assessing the materials. As far as the Form - 6 application is concerned, the report of the Agricultural Officer is not relevant. As I mentioned earlier, the Village Officer recommended for conversion. Why Ext.P6 recommendation of the Village Officer is to be neglected is not seen in Ext.P7 order. According to me, Ext.P7 is not a speaking order. Except referring the reports of the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer and the details of the inspection conducted by the Charge Officer, there is no independent consideration in Ext.P7 by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P7 is to be set aside and the Appellate Authority should reconsider the matter in the light of Ext.P6.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. Ext.P7 is set aside.