The authorized officer must independently assess land classification, with consideration of statutory guidelines, prior judgments, and relevant evidence to determine inclusion or exclusion from the data bank.

JUDGMENT

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

" i. Call for the records relating to Ext.P6 order of the 2^nd Respondent Deputy Collector (RR), Thrissur and to quash the same order by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writs, Orders or Directions.

ii. Call for the records relating to Ext.P7 order of the 1^st Respondent Sub-Collector/RDO Thrissur and to quash the same order by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writs, Orders or Directions.

iii. Declare that the property of the Petitioner having a total extent of 1.0643 Hectares comprised various sub-divisions of Re-Sy. No. 78/35 situated at Block 072, in Marathakkara Village, Thrissur Taluk of Thrissur District is dry/garden land, having all the characterisation of Purayidam and therefore the inclusion of 1.0643 Hectares of the property in the data bank is liable to be excluded.

iv. Issue such other and further writs, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

v. Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular documents."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner filed two consecutive applications in Form - 5 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules , 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). Both these applications were dismissed as per Exts.P6 and P7. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents rejecting the Form–5 application submitted by him. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the authorised officer has not considered the contentions of the petitioner.

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. Eventhough, KSREC report is available in Ext.P7, the same is not properly considered by the authorized 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.

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. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set aside.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:

1. Exts.P6 and P7 orders are set aside.

2. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents/authorised o are directed to reconsider Ext.P3 Form – 5 application 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. On the other hand, if the authorised officer opts to personally inspect the property, the application shall be considered and disposed of within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by