The competent authority must conduct a proper inspection and assessment as mandated by applicable rules before making a decision regarding land classification.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to the passing of the order Exhibit P6 by the 1st respondent and to quash the same.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to reconsider and pass fresh orders on Exhibit P5 application submitted by the petitioner in Form No.5 before the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Rules after obtaining a fresh and independent Recommendation/ Report from the 2nd respondent and thereafter verifying the same by physical inspection and also with the satellite images of the same to be obtained from the competent institution/ authority and also with due adherence to the dictum laid down by this Hon’ble Court, governing the subject matter, within a reasonable time frame as fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

(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 is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed by the 1^st respondent rejecting Ext.P5 Form–5 application submitted by the petitioner under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’, for brevity). 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. 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 O 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. Ext. P6 order is set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent / authorised o directed to reconsider Ext.P5 Form–5 application submitted by the petitioner, 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 applic