The authorized officer must ensure compliance with statutory requirements when determining land classification, including personal inspections or satellite imagery.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing Exhibit P4 Order as unjust and illegal;

ii. To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or, order, or direction, quashing Exhibit P2 to the extent to which the land of the petitioner is included as paddy land in the Data Bank prepared by the 4^th respondent;

iii. To declare the land in question does not fall under the purview of a paddy land or wet land defined in the Act and therefore liable to be removed from the Data Bank;

iv. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the 3^rd respondent to pass fresh orders removing the entries regarding the petitioner’s property from the Data Bank, after strictly following the procedures prescribed in law and take steps to publish an erratum notification in Kerala Gazette for the same, within a time frame of two months or such period as this Hon’ble Court may fix; v. Pass any other orders or directions that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice.

vi. Dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the vernacular language. And vii. Award cost.”[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting the 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 Rulesr. 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.P4 order is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent/authorised o 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